Smith v. Hooker Chemical & Plastic Corp.

New York Court of Appeals

Smith v. Hooker Chemical & Plastic Corp.

521 N.E.2d 431, 70 N.Y.2d 994, 526 N.Y.S.2d 425, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 165

New York Court of Appeals·Decided February 17, 1988·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes upon owners and contractors a nondelegable duty to provide adequate safety devices to afford proper protection to those working on a building or structure (Bland v Manocherian, 66 NY2d 452: Zimmer v Chemung *996 County Performing Arts, 65 NY2d 513). The trial court, affirmed by the Appellate Division, did not err in its determinations that defendants violated Labor Law § 240 (1) in not providing adequate safety devices, and that the violation was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. Thus we do not reach the issue whether defendants could be liable if adequate safety devices had been made available to plaintiff but he simply refused to use them (see, 89 AD2d 361 [Simons, J.]).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Kaye, Alexander, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur; Judges Simons and Titone taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes upon owners and contractors a nondelegable duty to provide adequate safety devices to afford proper protection to those working on a building or structure (Bland v Manocherian, 66 NY2d 452: Zimmer v Chemung *996 County Performing Arts, 65 NY2d 513). The trial court, affirmed by the Appellate Division, did not err in its determinations that defendants violated Labor Law § 240 (1) in not providing adequate safety devices, and that the violation was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. Thus we do not reach the issue whether defendants could be liable if adequate safety devices had been made available to plaintiff but he simply refused to use them (see, 89 AD2d 361 [Simons, J.]).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Kaye, Alexander, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur; Judges Simons and Titone taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Smith v. Hooker Chemical & Plastic Corp., 521 N.E.2d 431, 70 N.Y.2d 994, 526 N.Y.S.2d 425, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 165 (N.Y. 1988).

Pincite

521 N.E.2d 431 (Smith v. Hooker Chemical & Plastic Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related