Practice point: The Appellate Division rejected defendants' argument that plaintiff was required to demonstrate that the ladder was defective in order to satisfy his burden as to the Labor Law § 240(1) claim. It is sufficient for purposes of liability under section 240(1) that adequate safety devices to prevent the ladder from slipping or to protect plaintiff from falling were absent. As there is no evidence that plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker or that he was not engaged in covered activity, it is sufficient for his claim that his injuries were the direct consequence of using a ladder that did not provide adequate protection.
Student note: It is irrelevant whether plaintiff fell because the ladder wobbled or because he dropped his wrench. It is clear that the ladder did not prevent plaintiff from falling and there is no dispute that no safety devices, other than the ladder, were provided.
Case: Hill v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 05019 (1st Dep't June 23, 2016)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: CPLR 308(4) and the due diligence standard.