Hunt v. Werner Spitz Construction Co.

99 A.D.2d 671, 472 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16938
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 27, 1984·No. Appeal No. 1·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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).

99 A.D.2d 671 (Hunt v. Werner Spitz Construction Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Serino v. Miller Brewing Co.
167 A.D.2d 917 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)