Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type
Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type

Sharp v. Scandic Wall Ltd. Partnership – Case Brief Summary (New York)

In Sharp v. Scandic Wall Ltd. Partnership (306 A.D.2d 39, 760 N.Y.S.2d 478 [2003]) a worker was injured after he stood on an elevator car that dropped 30 feet.

Section 240 liability was imposed despite the fact that plaintiff and load were at the same level:

Plaintiff, however, is protected by section 240 (1). He was injured because the elevator he was hoisting to the ground fell, and the elevator fell because the hoist he was using, once removed, was not, as the statute requires, "so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection.". . . . While the case is unusual in that the load being hoisted was at the same level as the injured worker, it remains that plaintiff's injuries were the immediate result of "the effects of gravity" (Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 514, 583 N.E.2d 932, 577 N.Y.S.2d 219 [1991]) and the ultimate result of the lack of a hoist properly placed and operated so as to afford the protection required by the statute" (id. at 40).