A number of recent Court of Appeals decisions addressing Labor Law §2401 have left parties struggling for a clearer understanding of a statute that has traditionally been notoriously difficult to apply.2 However, these new cases highlight how the court’s interpretation of this strict liability statute has moved away from a simple literal interpretation toward a nuanced emphasis on circumstantial reasonableness.
For example, in Dahar v. Holland Ladder & Mfg. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 1332, the court refused to impose liability under §240 where a factory worker fell from a ladder while cleaning a finished wall component product, stating, “we have not extended the statute’s coverage to every activity that might fit within its literal terms.” The court noted that while “cleaning” and “structures” are specifically mentioned in §240, and those terms have been applied beyond construction settings, the claimants’ reliance on the wording of the law was “too simple.”
This content has been archived.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]
