Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Brian J. Shoot

It is clear by virtue of a 2010 Court of Appeals’ ruling that a claim premised upon an alleged violation of §240(1) of the Labor Law can be barred, in precisely defined circumstances, if the plaintiff-worker’s failure to utilize a “readily available” safety device or elevating device was the “sole proximate cause” of his or her accident. Gallagher v. New York Post, 14 N.Y.3d 83 (2010). But what if there was no “readily available” safety or elevating device and the defendants instead blame the worker for his or her failure to construct such a device from materials that were “readily available” at the site? Can the worker’s failure to properly construct the device bar his or her §240 claim?

This premium content is locked for
New York Law Journal subscribers only.

  • Subscribe now to enjoy unlimited access to New York Law Journal content,
  • 5 free articles* across the ALM Network every 30 days,
  • Exclusive access to other free ALM publications
  • And exclusive discounts on ALM events and publications.

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?
Interested in customizing your subscription with Law.com All Access?
Contact our Sales Professionals at 1-855-808-4530 or send an email to groupsales@alm.com to learn more.

Dig Deeper

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2018 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.