Our Blog

Fourth Department Upholds §241(6) Labor Law Claim

April 29, 2013

As an experienced Labor Law injury attorney in Western New York and Buffalo, I continue to see injured construction and other type of workers despite laws put in place for their protection. In Smith v. Nestle Purina Petcare Co., (4th Dept. 2013) the Appellate Division upheld the plaintiff’s claim of a violation of Labor Law §241(6). The plaintiff slipped and fell while working on a construction project inside a grain silo owned by the defendant. Plaintiff was standing on a ladder while vacuuming grain dust off the top of a hose rack. He stepped off the ladder, onto accumulated grain dust and a hose that was hanging off the rack, when he twisted his ankle and fell.

The Court held that 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2) provides that “the parts of the floor…where persons work or pass shall be kept free…from scattered tools and materials…insofar as may be consistent with the work being performed. The Court held that there is an issue of fact as to whether the hose constituted a scattered tool that was a tripping hazard within the meaning of 12 NYCRR(e)(2).

At Feroleto Law we have successfully handled many Labor Law cases while representing workers who have been seriously injured due to violations of laws designed for worker’s safety. Please contact us today if you have been injured due to the negligence of others.

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

Court Seals Documents at Expense of Consumer Safety

An AAJ article June 4, 2009 looks at the practice of courts sealing litigation documents to the advantage of manufacturers in certain product cases. For example, Bausch & Lomb settled hundreds of cases involving contact solution that involved blindness where the court ordered the documents to be sealed.

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

Court of Appeals Rules on SUM Claims

In a decision dated June 4, 2009, In the Matter of Allstate Insurance Company v. Rivera, the Court of Appeals handed down a ruling regarding SUM claims. Essentially the Court ruled that insurers under a SUM policy are “able to reduce the coverage limits of the tortfeasor’s policy

Read Blog