Jury to Decide Whether Falling Debris was Foreseeable at Construction Site
Amerson v. Melito Constr. Corp., 845 N.Y.S.2d 457 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
In this case, the Second Department reversed a finding of summary judgment concerning an alleged violation of Labor Law § 241(6). Plaintiff, a masonry subcontractor, was injured while performing his duties at the construction site when a concrete block fell on his head. At the time he was injured, plaintiff was wearing a hard hart and had various pieces of equipment, including a chipping hammer, scraper, shovel and wheelbarrow, in his possession as needed to perform his work. The Second Department accepted plaintiff’s argument that the area where the injury occurred was an area normally exposed to falling material or objects within the meaning of regulation 12 N.Y.C.R.R. 23-1.7[a][1]. Consequently, the court held that plaintiff had presented a question for a jury to decide whether the equipment provided to plaintiff at the construction site was reasonable and adequate under the circumstances.
In this case, the Second Department reversed a finding of summary judgment concerning an alleged violation of Labor Law § 241(6). Plaintiff, a masonry subcontractor, was injured while performing his duties at the construction site when a concrete block fell on his head. At the time he was injured, plaintiff was wearing a hard hart and had various pieces of equipment, including a chipping hammer, scraper, shovel and wheelbarrow, in his possession as needed to perform his work. The Second Department accepted plaintiff’s argument that the area where the injury occurred was an area normally exposed to falling material or objects within the meaning of regulation 12 N.Y.C.R.R. 23-1.7[a][1]. Consequently, the court held that plaintiff had presented a question for a jury to decide whether the equipment provided to plaintiff at the construction site was reasonable and adequate under the circumstances.
