Brian J Shoot

May 01, 2019 | New York Law Journal

In his Construction Accident Litigation column, Brian J. Shoot discusses what some view as a split between the First and Second Departments on an issue involving Labor Law §240. He writes that the so-called split is largely in the eye of the beholder and the rule in both departments—indeed, in all four departments—is more nuanced. That the plaintiff was injured while on his or her way to lunch should not of itself be disqualifying in any department in light of the governing Court of Appeals' rulings. However, the situation can change, in any department, when additional facts are present.

By Brian J. Shoot

18 minute read

January 31, 2019 | New York Law Journal

Although 'Rodriguez' did not arise from a construction accident, the decision indeed affects construction accident litigation. In this article, Construction Accident Litigation columnist Brian J. Shoot briefly reviews 'Rodriguez' itself, the ruling's general impact on personal injury litigation, and its particular impact on construction accident litigation.

By Brian J. Shoot

12 minute read

November 02, 2018 | New York Law Journal

Construction Accident Litigation columnist Brian J. Shoot writes: Those of us who deal with the statute fairly regularly become inured to the basic illogic on which the entire §241[6] edifice rests. Yet, it did not have to be this way.

By Brian J. Shoot

16 minute read

August 02, 2018 | New York Law Journal

In a given year, there may be as many as 170 to 200 reported appellate decisions that involve application of Labor Law Sections 240, 241(6) and/or 200 to accidents alleged to have occurred during the course of a “construction” activity.

By  Brian J. Shoot

2 minute read

April 27, 2018 | New York Law Journal

In his Construction Accident Litigation column, Brian J. Shoot discusses four rulings that were rendered over Appellate Division dissents, including one 4 to 1 ruling that was afterwards affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

By Brian J. Shoot

14 minute read

February 01, 2018 | New York Law Journal

In this Construction Accident Litigation column, Brian J. Shoot and Susan M. Jaffe write: The Court of Appeals is frequently called upon to make rulings concerning the scope and application of Labor Law §240, the so-called scaffold statute. It sometimes explains the grounds for its determinations in great detail. This column concerns a recent case in which the court went in, well, a different direction.

By Brian J. Shoot and Susan M. Jaffe

16 minute read

November 03, 2017 | New York Law Journal

In his Construction Accident Litigation column, Brian J. Shoot analyzes the following issue: What if there was no “readily available” safety or elevating device and the defendants instead blame the worker for his or her failure to construct such a device from materials that were “readily available” at the site? Can the worker's failure to properly construct the device bar his or her §240 claim?

By Brian J. Shoot

19 minute read

August 03, 2017 | New York Law Journal

In his Construction Accident Litigation column, Brian J. Shoot discusses who, precisely, are "owners" of "one and two-family dwellings" for the purposes of exemption from Labor Law §§240 and 241, and the two principal exceptions to the exemption.

By Brian J. Shoot

33 minute read

May 01, 2017 | New York Law Journal

Construction Accident Litigation columnist Brian J. Shoot writes: The Court of Appeals ended March with a 4-to-3 ruling that at least some defense advocates are already heralding as having effected a sea change in the jurisprudence concerning the so-called "scaffold statute." I think it far more likely that the case was, at bottom, just about exterior stairs and the impossibility of keeping them dry when it rains.

By Brian J. Shoot

19 minute read

February 02, 2017 | New York Law Journal

Construction Accident Litigation columnist Brian J. Shoot considers the Court of Appeals' two most recent rulings in the field, both of which left unanswered questions.

By Brian J. Shoot

16 minute read