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?
To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.
Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.
ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at email@example.com