 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Isabell v. U.W. Marx11/14/2002
Law § 240 (1) liability in a falling object case, " plaintiff must show that the object fell, while being hoisted or secured, because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute" (id. at 268 [emphasis in original]).
Here the beam, attached to the clamp and line, was deliberately dropped to accomplish the task of flipping it (see e.g. Corey v Gorick Constr. Co., 271 AD2d 911). Neither the crane, the line attached to the clamp nor the clamp itself malfunctioned. Each performed as intended and "served core objective under Labor Law § 240 (1) of preventing the beam from being unintentionally * * * released" (id. at 913). Although plaintiff argues that the single line clamp was an inadequate safety device and he worked on other jobs with a "spreader hook" which he described as a "little safer," there was no evidence that the clamp failed to perform its function or evidence that additional lines would have prevented the accident. This was simply "not a situation where a hoisting or securing device [or an additional device] of the kind enumerated in the statute would have been necessary or even expected" (Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., supra at 268; see Roberts v General Elec. Co., 97 NY2d 737, 738). We agree with Supreme Court that this was "not a falling hazard contemplated by the statute," but "a general hazard of the workplace" (Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., supra at 269; see Misseritti v Mark IV Constr. Co., 86 NY2d 487). Accordingly, Supreme Court did not err by granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
(*4)
|