You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS NOT WEARING A HARNESS AND FELL FROM A ROOF; THE FACT THAT...

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT WEARING A HARNESS AND FELL FROM A ROOF; THE FACT THAT HARNESSES MAY HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted. Although plaintiff was a ground worker the on roofing job, he fell from the roof alleging that a toe board “gave out.” The fact that plaintiff was not wearing a harness, in the face of allegations harnesses were available, was not enough to defeat plaintiff’s motion. The dissenters argued the evidence that all the toe boards were in tact after the accident raised a question of fact whether that safety device failed:

… [P]laintiff met his initial burden on that part of the motion by establishing that his ” injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential’ ” … . Specifically, plaintiff submitted his deposition testimony, wherein he stated that the toe board failed, causing him to fall from the roof. He also testified that he was not provided with a harness and that there were no available harnesses nearby. …

The ” presence of [other safety devices] somewhere at the worksite’ does not [alone] satisfy defendants’ duty to provide appropriate safety devices” … . …

… “[T]he mere failure by plaintiff to follow safety instructions” does not render plaintiff the sole proximate cause of his injuries  … . The evidence presented by defendants established only that plaintiff possibly failed to follow safety instructions, not that he outright refused to “use available, safe and appropriate equipment” … . Defendants failed to demonstrate that plaintiff ” chose for no good reason not to’ ” wear a safety harness … . At most, plaintiff’s “alleged conduct would amount only to comparative fault and thus cannot bar recovery under the statute” … . Schutt v Bookhagen, 2020 NY Slip Op 04651, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

You might also like
EVIDENCE MOTHER HAD BEEN ARRESTED FOR A DRUG OFFENSE WAS ENOUGH TO WARRANT A HEARING ON FATHER’S PETITION FOR A CUSTODY MODIFICATION 4TH DEPT.
ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION BEFORE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD RULED ON WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S BIPOLAR DIAGNOSIS AND A STATEMENT INDICATING HIS FAILURE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OFFENSE DID NOT JUSTIFY AN UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM SORA RISK-LEVEL TWO TO THREE; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SAW WHAT WAS TO BE SEEN IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
Old Age, Infirmity, Dementia and Medical Opinion Did Not Demonstrate Lack of Testamentary Capacity
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT MET THE CRITERIA FOR A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER THE RESULTING SENTENCE WAS TOO HARSH; SENTENCE REDUCED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION (FOURTH DEPT).
Persistent Felony Offender Statute Does Not Require Prior Felonies to be Equivalent to New York Felonies
CHEERLEADERS FOR BUFFALO BILLS PROPERLY CERTIFIED AS A CLASS ALLEGING LABOR LAW VIOLATIONS AND FRAUD, EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, MULTIPLE LAW FIRMS PROPERLY CERTIFIED AS CLASS COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE TOWN’S APPROVAL OF CHANGES TO A WIND-TURBINE PROJECT WITHOUT A SECOND... BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S...