Our Blog

Fall Was The Result Of Elevated Related Risk

July 5, 2013

In, NICOMETI v. THE VINEYARDS OF FREDONIA, LLC (June 2013) the Fourth Department held that contrary to the contention of defendants, the Supreme Court properly concluded that plaintiff’s fall was the result of an elevation-related risk for which Labor Law § 240 (1) provides protection.

Plaintiff alleged that he fell when his stilts slipped on ice while he was installing insulation at an elevated level, i.e., the ceiling. The Court held that it is well settled that “[t]he contemplated hazards [covered by the statute] are those related to the effects of gravity where protective devices are called for either because of a difference between the elevation level of the required work and a lower level or a difference between the elevation level where the worker is positioned and the higher level of the materials or load being hoisted or secured. Here the risk created by the need to elevate plaintiff to the height [of the ceiling], and the [stilts were] the . . . safety device provided to protect the worker from the risk inherent in having to work at a height (Inasmuch stilts “failed while plaintiff was installing the [insulation on the ceiling]—work requiring the statute’s special protections” the court properly concluded that the statute applies to plaintiff’s section 240 (1) claim.”

At Feroleto Law we have the experience to handle labor law and construction injuries. Please call us if you need assistance with your case.

Request Your Free Consultation

Get the answers and support you need. Our friendly and experienced Buffalo personal injury lawyers will take the time to understand your case, explain your options, and guide you every step of the way.

Our Practice Areas

Read More Articles

Ohio Court Finds Employment Agreement Unenforceable That Requires Attorney to Return 95% of Fees

Talk Texting With Your Loved Ones

Besides being a personal injury attorney, I am a runner. I run all over Buffalo and Western New York. What amazes me is the number of people I see texting or talking while driving. I see them jolted into awareness, taking quick action when they bring their eyes

Read Blog
Ohio Court Finds Employment Agreement Unenforceable That Requires Attorney to Return 95% of Fees

Fourth Department Holds No Video Allowed For “NPE”

In Flores v. Vescera, (4th Dept. April 2013) the plaintiff appealed from a protective order that denied her demand to videotape a neuropsychological evaluation (NPE). The Curt held that there is no express statutory authority to videotape medical examinations and that videotaping has not been allowed in the

Read Blog