Practice point: The Appellate Division determined that the motion court properly rejected the City's argument that § 240(1) was inapplicable, because the rail that struck plaintiff did not fall from a "physically significant elevation differential." The Appellate Division affirmed the motion court's finding that the pile of rails that were stacked two and one-half to three feet high was not de minimis, given the approximately 1500 pound weight of the rail and the amount of force it was capable of generating, even over the course of a relatively short descent. The harm plaintiff suffered was the direct consequence of the application of the force of gravity to the rail that struck plaintiff.
Student note: In a claim such as this, the essential element to a conclusion that an object requires securing is that it presents a foreseeable elevation risk in light of the work being undertaken.
Case: Jordan v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 02565 (1st Dept. 2015)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: A defendant's burden on summary judgment.
