Sequencing Distinguishes “Falling Out of Flatbed” Cases
At first glance this may seem like an “open and shut” win for defendants. based on our previous reporting regarding fact patterns where plaintiffs fall out of flatbed truck.
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court, Kings County denied both plaintiff and defendants’ motions for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action.
In Gayed v. City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 30131(U), plaintiff was instructed to unload window guards from a truck, along with his co-workers. On prior occasions, a forklift had been used to unload the window guards, but on this date, plaintiff and his co-workers were instructed to perform the unloading by hand. Just prior to the subject incident, plaintiff was standing on top of the flatbed portion of the vehicle holding the window guards, which were stacked vertically and held in place by a strap. The guards were standing at the same level as the plaintiff. After plaintiff had unloaded approximately two or three guards, the remaining stack slipped and pushed plaintiff from the truck, causing him to fall approximately four or five feet to the ground. When plaintiff was on the ground, one of the window guards fell on top of him.
In its decision, the Supreme Court, Kings County denied both plaintiff’s motion and defendants’ motion, finding that the parties failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact. The Court first cited to Rodriguez v. D&S Builders, 98 A.D.3d 957 (2d Dep’t 2012), a Second Department case during which summary judgment was denied to plaintiff on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action where he fell from a flatbed truck after being struck and pushed by concrete forms that were level with him on the truck.
The Supreme Court held this case stands apart from Rodriguez, in that plaintiff was not merely pushed off of a flat truck but was afterwards struck by falling window guards. Thus, questions of fact existed, precluding summary judgment as to whether the window guards in question were so placed that they exposed workers to an elevation related risk once on the ground and whether the window guards required securing with a different safety device while they were being unloaded.
Here we have a combination of gravity-related incidents in a Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. We have plaintiff falling from the flatbed and then have objects falling from the flatbed onto plaintiff after he impacted the floor. If plaintiff does not get hit by the falling guards after he falls from the truck, summary judgment is likely still denied to plaintiff pursuant to the Rodriguez case cited supra.
The Gayed 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.
