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. Today, I look at two issues that have already been addressed several times in calendar year 2018.

The ‘Should Have Been Hoisted’ Object

The plaintiff and some number of co-workers were tasked with moving a 600-pound object up or down a flight of stairs. They should have been provided with a hoist—which is a listed device within the ambit of Labor Law § 240—but were instead directed to manually raise or lower the object. Alternatively, they were provided with some device that was plainly inadequate for the task.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]