ACCIDENT VICTIM WINS SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW CLAIM FOR FALLING WHILE CLIMBING DOWN TREE TO EXIT SCAFFOLD

Case: Torres v. Our Townhouse, LLC

Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Date: January 24, 2012

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Bronx and Queens; Queens accident attorney)

Comment: To descend from a sidewalk bridge (like a scaffold) this accident victim tried to climb down a tree, while engaged in construcoit work. He claimed there was no ladder or stairs provided to him. The defense says there was a ladder in the plaintiff's truck, which he didn't use. The court didn't believe the defense. Summary judgment granted to this accident victim on his New York Labor Law claim.

********************************************************

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered March 29, 2011, which denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law Sec. 240(1) cause of action, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

********************************************************

RELATED POSTS:

NEW YORK LABOR LAW INTERPRETED BROADLY TO GIVE JUST RESULT TO CONSTRUCTION WORKER INJURED BY FALLING PIPES (Posted by Queens accident attorney Gary E. Rosenberg on Dec 5, 2011)

********************************************************

Plaintiff was injured when he fell to the ground while descending from a 12-foot-high sidewalk bridge without the use of a ladder or scaffold or any other safety device. Defendants contend that he was provided with a ladder and that his own decision to climb down a nearby tree instead of using the ladder was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. However, the record fails to support this contention. Even if defendants' evidence suggested that there might have been a ladder in the chassis under the truck at the work site, no evidence was presented that plaintiff knew where the ladder was or that he knew he was expected to use it and for no good reason chose not to do so (see Gallagher v. New York Post, 14 NY3d 83, 88 [2010]; Auriemma v. Biltmore Theatre, LLC, 82 AD3d 1, 11 [2011]).

********************************************************

RELATED POSTS:

TELEPHONE INSTALLER INJURED IN FALL OFF LADDER WAS "ALTERING" BUILDING UNDER NEW YORK STATE LABOR LAW (Posted by Queens accident attorney Gary E. Rosenberg on Nov 9, 2011)

********************************************************

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

********************************************************

RELATED POSTS:

SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED IN LABOR LAW CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT; PLAINTIFF DIDN'T KNOW WHERE FALLING BUCKET CAME FROM (Posted by Queens accident attorney Gary E. Rosenberg on Oct 26, 2011)

********************************************************

Categories