Hunt v. Werner Spitz Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hunt v. Werner Spitz Construction Co.

99 A.D.2d 671, 472 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16938

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 27, 1984

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 99 A.D.2d 671 (Hunt v. Werner Spitz Construction Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hunt v. Werner Spitz Construction Co., 99 A.D.2d 671, 472 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16938 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff was injured when he fell 25 feet to the ground from the roof of a building upon which he was welding. Trial Term correctly set aside the verdict and found defendants liable under subdivision 1 of section 240 of the Labor Law. The failure to furnish a device “which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection” violates the command of the statute (Labor Law, § 240, subd 1). A violation of this statute affixes absolute liability upon contractors and owners (see Long v Forest-Fehlhaber, 55 NY2d 154; Haimes v New York Tel. Co., 46 NY2d 132; Brant v Republic Steel Corp., 91 AD2d 841, app dsmd 59 NY2d 761; La France v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 89 AD2d 757, app dsmd 58 NY2d 747). Nor does plaintiff’s failure to use his own safety belt provide a viable defense to this statute (see Rea v Elia Bldg. Co., 79 AD2d 1102). We have examined defendants’ other arguments and find them without merit. (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Pine, J. — set aside verdict.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff was injured when he fell 25 feet to the ground from the roof of a building upon which he was welding. Trial Term correctly set aside the verdict and found defendants liable under subdivision 1 of section 240 of the Labor Law. The failure to furnish a device “which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection” violates the command of the statute (Labor Law, § 240, subd 1). A violation of this statute affixes absolute liability upon contractors and owners (see Long v Forest-Fehlhaber, 55 NY2d 154; Haimes v New York Tel. Co., 46 NY2d 132; Brant v Republic Steel Corp., 91 AD2d 841, app dsmd 59 NY2d 761; La France v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 89 AD2d 757, app dsmd 58 NY2d 747). Nor does plaintiff’s failure to use his own safety belt provide a viable defense to this statute (see Rea v Elia Bldg. Co., 79 AD2d 1102). We have examined defendants’ other arguments and find them without merit. (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Pine, J. — set aside verdict.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.2d 671, 472 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16938, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunt-v-werner-spitz-construction-co-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack