0 results for 'Sullivan Papain Block McGrath'
'Falling Object' Liability: Contrasts in First and Second Departments
Construction Accident Litigation columnist Brian J. Shoot revisits the issue arising in the law concerning Labor Law §240 on "falling object" liability and what, precisely, qualifies as an object that "requires securing for the purposes of the undertaking."Appellate Rulings Continue Debate on Labor Law Liability
In his Construction Accident Litigation column, Brian J. Shoot reviews decisions from the first half of the year, including holdings on comparative negligence and sole proximate cause of an injury, and rulings on whether a falling elevator or a fall from the back of a flatbed truck are elevation-related risks.Sandy-Related Suit Against Utilities Allowed to Proceed
An appeals court has ruled that Long Island Power Authority and National Grid are not immune to lawsuits filed by property owners alleging the utilities' negligence sparked electrical fires during Hurricane Sandy that damaged their properties.First Department's 3-2 Rulings: Fault Lines of the Law
In his Construction Accident Litigation column, Brian J. Shoot discusses recent cases illustrating issues on which courts continue to disagree: availability of a "sole proximate cause" defense when defendants claim injured workers were provided alternative means of performing the elevated work, the burden of proof in a fall from an unsecured but non-defective ladder, and whether a plaintiff's deliberate use of an closed A-frame ladder is the "sole proximate cause" of an accident or mere comparative negligence.Bronx Jury Awards $183M to Five Firefighters
A jury assigned 80 percent of the liability for the deaths and injuries to the city, which was accused of failing to provide equipment that would have allowed the firefighters to escape a 2005 tenement blaze on a day known as "Black Sunday."Lippman Years Mark Shift Toward Recognizing Worker Safety
In his Construction Accident Litigation column, Brian J. Shoot writes that the Lippman years brought a return to first principles—that is, to the concerns of worker safety that had prompted enactment of Labor Law §240 and 241 in the first instance. That constituted a significant departure from the years immediately preceding Chief Judge Lippman's tenure on the Court of Appeals.Labor Law §240(1): The Feasibility Issue
In his Construction Accident Litigation column, Brian J. Shoot writes: There is a great deal of confusion and controversy as to whether a plaintiff proceeding under Labor Law §240[1] must identify some statutory "safety device" that would have prevented the accident.Dismissal of Malpractice Suit Against Stroock Is Upheld
The First Department said the real estate developers' "unsupported factual allegations, speculation and conclusory statements" failed to sufficiently allege that, but for Stroock's alleged failure to advise them to pursue bankruptcy options, they would not have lost about $80 million.Corporate Transparency Act Resource Kit
Brought to you by Wolters Kluwer
Download Now
Revenue, Profit, Cash: Managing Law Firms for Success
Brought to you by Juris Ledger
Download Now
Law Firm Operational Considerations for the Corporate Transparency Act
Brought to you by Wolters Kluwer
Download Now
The Ultimate Guide to Remote Legal Work
Brought to you by Filevine
Download Now