Brian J Shoot

February 03, 2012 | New York Law Journal

In his Construction Accident Litigation column, Brian J. Shoot, a partner at Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, writes that there is no doubt that the collapse of a platform on which a worker was standing can constitute an elevation-related hazard within the scope of Labor Law �240(1). Yet, if the platform that collapsed was a permanent floor, stairway, fire escape or other structure, that circumstance raises an issue that has engendered a great deal of confusion and contention.

By Brian J. Shoot

12 minute read

November 01, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In his Construction Accident Litigation, Brian J. Shoot, a partner at Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, writes: Court of Appeals' rulings concerning Labor Law �241(6) have often sometimes seemed antithetical to the interests of work site safety. It is therefore noteworthy when the Court renders two pro-worker rulings in the same year, as it has in 2011.

By Brian J. Shoot

13 minute read

October 11, 2013 | New York Law Journal

In his Construction Accident Litigation column, Brian J. Shoot of Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, discusses the different legal standards and case law that may apply to a "closed ladder" plaintiff.

By Brian J. Shoot

12 minute read

July 17, 2012 | New York Law Journal

In his Construction Accident Litigation column, Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo partner Brian J. Shoot writes that until the Court of Appeals' decision last year in 'Salazar v. Novalex Contracting,' whether a construction worker's fall into a trench came within the ambit of Labor Law §240(1) depended on in which department of the Appellate Division one happened to be. Now, in the wake of the Court of Appeals' ruling as to the fell-into-a-trench accident in Salazar, the answer is…almost precisely the same.

By Brian J. Shoot

13 minute read

October 16, 2012 | New York Law Journal

In his Construction Accident Litigation column, Brian J. Shoot, a partner with Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, addresses two current controversies regarding application of Labor Law §240: One concerns the extent to which the element of foreseeability is relevant in assessing liability under Labor Law §240; the second concerns a largely unnoticed trend in which courts have penalized the plaintiff-worker for the transgressions of his or her employer in overstepping the bounds, temporal or geographic, in which the employer was authorized to work.

By Brian J. Shoot

16 minute read

August 20, 2013 | New York Law Journal

In his Construction Accident Litigation column, Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo partner Brian J. Shoot discusses how New York compares to other states in imposing liability under common law with respect to construction site accidents.

By Brian J. Shoot

13 minute read