Plaintiff’s Shirt Causes Question of Fact in Labor Law § 240(1) Cause of Action
In a recent decision, the Appellate Division, First Department modified a Supreme Court, New York County decision that, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment to dismiss plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action.
In Hempstead v. Hammer & Steel, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 00020, plaintiff alleges that he was injured when a cement mixer weighing more than 600 lbs. fell and crushed him during the course of his work at a construction site.
After discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment as to his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, arguing that plaintiff’s accident occurred, not as a direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protections against an elevation-related risk, but rather as a result of a stable piece of equipment caused to fall from a trailer. Defendants further argue that after the mixer was set down on a trailer, plaintiff made the decision to jump off the flatbed, causing his clothing to become stuck on the mixing unit and causing it to fall.
The lower Court disagreed, noting that questions of fact exist about the occurrence of the accident, and whether the mixing unit fell on its own volition or whether plaintiff knocked it over causing it to proceed to fall. It is also unclear if the mixing unit could have been secured in a way that would have prevented it from tipping, preventing the subject accident.
The Appellate Division, First Department agreed, noting although some testimony existed that plaintiff’s shirt may have caught on the mixer and brought it down with him as he came off of the trailer, the record was not “sufficiently clear” to find that to be the definitive version of events, leaving questions of fact to warrant denial of summary judgment.
The sufficiency of inconsistent narratives of the subject incident warranting denial of summary judgment is a trend that continues into 2025, as opposed to similar cases in the Second Department, which have continually been held to be insufficient.
The Hempstead decision can be found here.
For additional information, contact Philip D. Priore, Esq. and/or Michael J. Shields, Esq.
This article was prepared by McCormick & Priore, P.C. to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is in no way intended to provide legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of McCormick & Priore, P.C.
