Brian J. Shoot (Courtesy photo)
I today address two unrelated issues that have produced anomalous rulings concerning the scope of Labor Law §§200, 240 and 241(6).
One issue, which now appears to have split the Departments of the Appellate Division, is whether a defendant contractor’s affirmative creation of a hazardous condition can give rise to liability under Labor Law §200 even where the defendant did not have any supervisory authority over the activities of the site worker (i.e., the plaintiff) who sustained the resultant injury. For the reasons explained below, the issue, while perhaps interesting to those of us who follow such matters, is likely of no real consequence to the litigants themselves.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
