Editor’s Note: This is the second installment of a two-part column. The first installment appeared in the May 5, 2023, edition of the New York Law Journal.

This column, which was divided into two parts due to its length, focuses upon a single question: whether the plaintiff-worker’s conduct constitutes the sole proximate cause of the subject accident as a matter of law, or alternatively may be deemed by a jury to be the sole proximate cause of the subject accident, in a case in which, the worker indeed knew there was a safer means of working at the subject elevation, and also that he or she was had been told or expected to use that safer means of elevation, the subject accident would not have occurred but for the worker’s choice of the unsafe mode of elevation, and, it nonetheless remains that the persons in control of the site allowed the worker to work unsafely on this and perhaps prior occasions as well.