The Court of Appeals has stated that Labor Law §240—the so-called strict liability scaffold statute—does not apply to workers injured by gravity-related accidents resulting from “routine workplace risks,”1 “ordinary and usual dangers,”2 “general hazards of the workplace”3 and “the types of perils a construction worker usually encounters at a work site.”4
However, parties and judges often disagree as to what characterizes a loss as the result of routine, ordinary, usual, normal or general job site perils. This discussion will examine several recent appellate decisions that have focused on foreseeability in deciding the applicability of §240.
This content has been archived.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]
