The plaintiff, an ironworker, was scaling a 31-foot vertical column without any form of fall protection when he lost his grip and fell. The defendants admitted that occurred but urged that such safety devices “as netting, metal decking and lifelines” are not used during the early stages of construction projects and “it would have been infeasible, even dangerous, to have used any such devices.”1 Is that a legally viable defense to a claim premised upon section 240(1) of the Labor Law?
A different case: The plaintiff was “loading a dumpster and rearranging the debris therein.”2 The dumpster “was about six feet high” and had a ledge at the top that “was about eight inches in width.” The work required plaintiff “to stand at the top of the dumpster…with at least one foot perched on an eight-inch ledge.” Plaintiff lost his balance and fell. In order to prevail under Labor Law §240(1), must the plaintiff show that it would have been feasible for the defendants to provide him with a statutory “safety device” that would have prevented the accident?
This content has been archived.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]
