Should the plaintiff be permitted to recover under section 240 of the Labor Law when, on the one hand, plaintiff knew that he or she should have used a readily available safety device, but, on the other hand, “everyone” or virtually everyone at the work site was doing the very same thing?

That was the principal issue presented earlier this year in Biaca-Neto v. Boston Road II Housing Development Fund Corporation, 34 NY3d 1166 [2020], mod’g 176 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2019].

The ‘Gallagher’ Rule

This content has been archived.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]