Gabriel v. The Boldt Group, Inc.

In this case, the plaintiff was injured when the actual hoisting device fell on him. The plaintiff was a construction worker who worked on a project constructing ceramic-lined silos. The plaintiff was injured while he and a coworker were attempting to raise a 400- to 500-pound metal insert with a pulley approximately 30 to 40 feet to the top of the silos. The cross member on which the pulley was placed collapsed when the insert was about eight feet off the ground, and both the pulley and the rope hit and injured the plaintiff.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, concluded that the hoisting apparatus that struck the plaintiff constituted a falling object within the meaning of Labor Law section 240(1). Citing Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 N.Y.2d 259 (2001), the cornerstone case for falling objects, the Court concluded that a defective hoist is itself a falling object when the hoist collapses while being used to lift an object.

This is one of the first cases that I have come across in which a court has held that the actual hoisting apparatus can be a falling object.