You are here: / / THE SCAFFOLD ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING WAS INSECURE, WHICH IS A VIOLATION...

THE SCAFFOLD ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING WAS INSECURE, WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240(1); WHETHER THERE WAS SAFETY EQUIPMENT WHICH WAS NOT USED, EVEN IF PLAINTIFF WAS INSTRUCTED TO USE IT, IS IRRELEVANT (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should have been granted. There were no witnesses to plaintiff’s scaffold-fall. Plaintiff testified the unsecured scaffold moved when he started using the chipping gun and the unsecured plywood on which he was standing caused him to lose his balance. The fact that there may have been scaffold railings available and the evidence plaintiff was instructed to use the railings did not defeat summary judgment because comparative negligence is not part of the analysis:

The purpose of Labor Law § 240 (1) “is to protect workers by placing ultimate responsibility for safety practices at building construction jobs where such responsibility actually belongs, on the owner and general contractor. . . instead of on workers, who are scarcely in a position to protect themselves from accident” … . Thus, the statute imposes a nondelegable duty on owners and contractors to provide “devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to” those individuals performing the work … . “Under Labor Law § 240 (1) it is conceptually impossible for a statutory violation (which serves as a proximate cause for a plaintiff’s injury) to occupy the same ground as a plaintiff’s sole proximate cause for the injury” … . Therefore, if a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) is a proximate cause of an injury, the plaintiff cannot be solely to blame for it … . * * * [E]ven if there were evidence that adequate safety devices were readily available at the work site and that plaintiff knew he was expected to use them, it would not render plaintiff the sole cause of the accident, because the unsecured scaffold with unlevel, uneven, and unsecured floor planks initially caused him to lose his balance and fall …”. Quiroz v Memorial Hosp. for Cancer & Allied Diseases, 2022 NY Slip Op 01130, First Dept 2-22-22

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF, WHO TRIPPED ON AN EXTENSION CORD AND FELL DOWN A STAIRWELL, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
NOTE: THIS CASE WAS REVERSED BY THE US SUPREME COURT ON JANUARY 20, 2022, BASED UPON A VIOLATION OF THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE; IN AN EXHAUSTIVE DECISION WHICH DISCUSSED ONLY THE CONVOLUTED FACTS OF THIS MURDER CASE, THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION, OVER A DISSENT WHICH CALLED INTO QUESTION THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS UPON SEEING THE POLICE IN A HOUSING AUTHORITY BUILDING FREQUENTED BY TRESPASSERS JUSTIFIED INITIAL QUESTIONING; REMAND OF PRIOR CONVICTION FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DETERMINATION DID NOT ALTER DATE OF THAT CONVICTION FOR PREDICATE-FELONY PURPOSES.
THE TERMS ‘EVENT OF DEFAULT’ AND ‘DEFAULT’ WHICH APPEARED IN TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE CONTRACT WERE DEEMED TO MEAN THE SAME THING, BECAUSE THE TERMS WERE DEEMED SYNONYMOUS PLAINTIFF DID NOT MEET ALL THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR STANDING TO SUE, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS SUBWAY ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE; PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A TRAIN AND ALLEGED THE ALLOWED SPEED FOR ENTERING A STATION WAS TOO HIGH; DEFENDANT TRANSIT AUTHORITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT SPEED STUDIES HAD BEEN CONDUCTED IN SUPPORT OF THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).
HEARSAY IN ACCIDENT REPORT NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH A LADDER AND WAS INSTRUCTED TO CLIMB UP THE SIDE OF A BRIDGE FROM WHICH HE FELL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, COMPARATIVE FAULT IS NOT A DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).
MOLD-INJURY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED AT THE PLEADING STAGE, PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY PLED THE DEVELOPMENT OF “NEW” SYMPTOMS WITHIN THREE YEARS OF FILING SUIT.

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

THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF A LEASE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE HUD REGULATION... THE TERM “ECONOMIC SECURITY” IN THE NYU FACULTY HANDBOOK DID NOT...