Brian J Shoot

November 07, 2016 | New York Law Journal

Construction Accident Litigation columnist Brian J. Shoot revisits the issue arising in the law concerning Labor Law §240 on "falling object" liability and what, precisely, qualifies as an object that "requires securing for the purposes of the undertaking."

By Brian J. Shoot

19 minute read

August 03, 2016 | New York Law Journal

In his Construction Accident Litigation column, Brian J. Shoot reviews decisions from the first half of the year, including holdings on comparative negligence and sole proximate cause of an injury, and rulings on whether a falling elevator or a fall from the back of a flatbed truck are elevation-related risks.

By Brian J. Shoot

20 minute read

May 03, 2016 | New York Law Journal

In his Construction Accident Litigation column, Brian J. Shoot discusses recent cases illustrating issues on which courts continue to disagree: availability of a "sole proximate cause" defense when defendants claim injured workers were provided alternative means of performing the elevated work, the burden of proof in a fall from an unsecured but non-defective ladder, and whether a plaintiff's deliberate use of an closed A-frame ladder is the "sole proximate cause" of an accident or mere comparative negligence.

By Brian J. Shoot

12 minute read

February 04, 2016 | New York Law Journal

In his Construction Accident Litigation column, Brian J. Shoot writes that the Lippman years brought a return to first principles—that is, to the concerns of worker safety that had prompted enactment of Labor Law §240 and 241 in the first instance. That constituted a significant departure from the years immediately preceding Chief Judge Lippman's tenure on the Court of Appeals.

By Brian J. Shoot

12 minute read

November 23, 2015 | New York Law Journal

In his Construction Accident Litigation column, Brian J. Shoot writes: There is a great deal of confusion and controversy as to whether a plaintiff proceeding under Labor Law §240[1] must identify some statutory "safety device" that would have prevented the accident.

By Brian J. Shoot

13 minute read

November 20, 2015 | New York Law Journal

In his Construction Accident Litigation column, Brian J. Shoot writes: There is a great deal of confusion and controversy as to whether a plaintiff proceeding under Labor Law §240[1] must identify some statutory "safety device" that would have prevented the accident.

By Brian J. Shoot

13 minute read

August 19, 2015 | New York Law Journal

In his Construction Accident Litigation column, Brian J. Shoot writes: The plaintiff is engaged in what anyone would call construction work when she falls into an uncovered opening while walking on the ground level of the construction site. Does the fact that the opening is at ground level, perhaps with a basement or sub-basement immediately below, mean that it is not an elevation-related risk? Does it matter what kind of an opening it was? Some comments in a recent Court of Appeals ruling raise the issue anew.

By Brian J. Shoot

13 minute read

August 18, 2015 | New York Law Journal

In his Construction Accident Litigation column, Brian J. Shoot writes: The plaintiff is engaged in what anyone would call construction work when she falls into an uncovered opening while walking on the ground level of the construction site. Does the fact that the opening is at ground level, perhaps with a basement or sub-basement immediately below, mean that it is not an elevation-related risk? Does it matter what kind of an opening it was? Some comments in a recent Court of Appeals ruling raise the issue anew.

By Brian J. Shoot

13 minute read

May 08, 2015 | New York Law Journal

In his Construction Accident Litigation column, Brian J. Shoot writes: On April 2, the Court of Appeals rendered two rulings that related to Labor Law §240[1], one unanimously deeming the statute applicable; in the other, a non-unanimous court deemed the statute inapplicable. As is almost invariably the case with Court of Appeals decisions concerning the oft-litigated "scaffold law," each ruling forces us to consider how it will impact future dispositions.

By Brian J. Shoot

12 minute read

May 07, 2015 | New York Law Journal

In his Construction Accident Litigation column, Brian J. Shoot writes: On April 2, the Court of Appeals rendered two rulings that related to Labor Law §240[1], one unanimously deeming the statute applicable; in the other, a non-unanimous court deemed the statute inapplicable. As is almost invariably the case with Court of Appeals decisions concerning the oft-litigated "scaffold law," each ruling forces us to consider how it will impact future dispositions.

By Brian J. Shoot

12 minute read