On Dec. 17, 2009 the New York Court of Appeals issued its decision in Runner v. New York Stock Exchange,1 which dealt with yet another application of New York Labor Law §240(1) to an injured worker. In its decision, the Court once again reminded us, as it does from time to time, that the most important question is one of gravity; or as the Court put it, the “single decisive question is whether plaintiff’s injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against the risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential.”2
Over the years, the Court of Appeals and the appellate divisions have dealt with thousands of claims invoking the protection of Labor Law §240(1). As the courts examine these very fact-driven cases against the backdrop of this well-worn statute, they have created not a bright line rule on what is or is not a 240(1) claim, but rather a line of varying shades of gray.
This content has been archived.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
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]
