This case involves a Labor Law section 240(1) issues. The plaintiff fell from a six-foot stepladder while attempting to remove asbestos nine feet above him. The Majority (Justices Lahtinen, Peters, and Mugglin) and the Dissenting Justices (Justices Rose and Spain) of the Appellate Division, Third Department agree that the stepladder slipped; they disagree on what caused the ladder to slip.
The Majority’s recitation of the facts reflects that the plaintiff placed the ladder on a slippery surface. By contrast, the Dissenting Justices observe that the defendants’ evidence included testimony from the project manager who stated that he inspected the site after the fall and noted that the floor was not slippery. The defendants’ expert opined that the ladder was not defective and the accident could not have occurred in the fashion as described by the plaintiff. Also, the affidavit of the defendant’s supervisor stated that he concluded based on his interview with the plaintiff and inspection of the accident scene shortly after the accident that it occurred because the plaintiff was overreaching.
The opinion on its face appears to demonstrate that a question of fact exists on the proximate cause issue. The Dissenting Justice briefly discussed the Court of Appeals’ decision, Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of New York; however, the Majority was able to sidestep Blake by their narrow disposition of the facts.
This case was featured on the front page of today’s New York Law Journal (subscription required).
New York Civil Law 