You are here: / / TILTING A SKID FROM A VERTICAL POSITION ONTO A DOLLY IS COVERED UNDER LABOR...

TILTING A SKID FROM A VERTICAL POSITION ONTO A DOLLY IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SAFETY DEVICE WAS REQUIRED.

The First Department determined Labor Law 240(1) applied to the task of tilting a skid from a vertical position to a dolly.  However, there was a question of fact whether the skid was heavy enough to require a safety device:

Plaintiff was injured when he and a coworker attempted to move a wooden skid from a vertical position onto an A-frame dolly by tilting it at a 45-degree angle on one corner and toppling it onto the dolly. While plaintiff hoisted his side of the skid overhead with his arms, his coworker apparently lost his grip, and the skid fell on plaintiff, causing tears in his arm and shoulder.

That plaintiff and the skid were on the same level does not bar application of Labor Law § 240(1) … .

However, contrary to plaintiff’s argument, a triable issue of fact exists as to the weight of the skid and, therefore, whether a safety device was required under the statute. Natoli v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 01818, 1st Dept 3-15-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (TILTING A SKID FROM A VERTICAL POSITION ONTO A DOLLY IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SAFETY DEVICE WAS REQUIRED)

You might also like
FACEBOOK’S SUIT AGAINST LAW FIRMS WHICH REPRESENTED A CLIENT IN A FRAUDULENT SUIT AGAINST FACEBOOK DISMISSED.
Homeowner’s Exemption Applied/Fact that Three Unrelated Families Lived in the Home Did Not Negate the Finding that the Home Was a Single Family Dwelling
EVEN THOUGH THE PEDESTRIAN DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY WHEN HE CROSSED THE STREET, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER COULD HAVE AVOIDED STRIKING HIM.
THE FIRST DEPARTMENT RULED THAT PLAINTIFF-TENANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THAT DEFENDANTS ENGAGED IN A FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO DEREGULATE APARTMENTS WHILE RECEIVING J51 TAX BENEFITS; THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED (CT APP).
RAW DATA IN REPORT CONNECTING DEFENDANT TO DNA EVIDENCE WAS NOT TESTIMONIAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE COLLECTION METHODS WAS NOT REQUIRED 1ST DEPT.
Class Certification Properly Granted; Rent Overcharge and Attorney’s-Fees Claims Did Not Seek “Penalties” In Violation of CPLR 901
FRAUD CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEUTSCHE BANK STEMMING FROM THE COLLAPSE OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, ACCUSATIONS AGAINST DEUTSCHE BANK WERE WELL-KNOWN MORE THAN TWO YEARS BEFORE THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT.
A CORPORATE OFFICER OR SHAREHOLDER CANNOT BE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR NONFEASANCE (DOING NOTHING), AS OPPOSED MISFEASANCE (FIRST 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

NOTICE OF DISCLAIMER SENT TO PLAINTIFF’S INSURER WAS NOT EFFECTIVE NOTICE... PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION,...