Mack v. Ford Motor Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mack v. Ford Motor Co.

245 A.D.2d 1055, 667 N.Y.S.2d 585

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1997

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D.2d 1055 (Mack v. Ford Motor 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

Mack v. Ford Motor Co., 245 A.D.2d 1055, 667 N.Y.S.2d 585 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. Robert Mack (plaintiff) fell while walking on a three-tiered scaffold. The level on which plaintiff was walking had no guardrail. Although plaintiff did not use the safety equipment available at the worksite, defendant presented no evidence that plaintiff “refused” to use the safety equipment and thus was a recalcitrant worker (see, Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 NY2d 555, 562-563; Hagins v State of New York, 81 NY2d 921, 922-923; Stolt v General Foods Corp., 81 NY2d 918, 920).

We reject defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s execution of a waiver absolved defendant of liability. That waiver is contrary to public policy because it effectively eliminates the purpose of Labor Law § 240 (1), i.e., “to protect workers and to impose the responsibility for safety practices on [owners and contractors, who are] best situated to bear that responsibility” (Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 500; see, Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 513). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mahoney, J.— Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Hayes, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. Robert Mack (plaintiff) fell while walking on a three-tiered scaffold. The level on which plaintiff was walking had no guardrail. Although plaintiff did not use the safety equipment available at the worksite, defendant presented no evidence that plaintiff “refused” to use the safety equipment and thus was a recalcitrant worker (see, Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 NY2d 555, 562-563; Hagins v State of New York, 81 NY2d 921, 922-923; Stolt v General Foods Corp., 81 NY2d 918, 920).

We reject defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s execution of a waiver absolved defendant of liability. That waiver is contrary to public policy because it effectively eliminates the purpose of Labor Law § 240 (1), i.e., “to protect workers and to impose the responsibility for safety practices on [owners and contractors, who are] best situated to bear that responsibility” (Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 500; see, Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 513). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mahoney, J.— Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Hayes, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 1055, 667 N.Y.S.2d 585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mack-v-ford-motor-co-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack