Practice point: In a § 241(6) action, it must be demonstrated that plaintiff’s injuries were proximately caused by a violation of an Industrial Code regulation that is applicable to the circumstances of the accident.
Practitioners should note the inapplicability of 2 NYCRR 23-8.1(f)(2)(i), which deals with sudden acceleration and deceleration of loads during hoisting, when, according to plaintiff's deposition testimony, the accident occurred after the hoisting operations was completed, and when, based on plaintiff's description of the accident, compliance with the provision would not have prevented the beam from being inadvertently picked up or subsequently dropped onto him.
Case: Decaire v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., NY Slip Op 10115 (2d Dept. 2008)
The opinion is here.
Tomorrow’s issue: Motion practice.
