Practice point: Because defendant-general contractor admitted that there was no place to which a harness could have been tied, defendants did not raise the inference that plaintiff's failure to use a safety harness was the sole proximate cause of his injury.
Students should note that the affirmation of defendants' attorney, asserting that there were places to which a safety harness could have been tied, carries no evidentiary weight.
The case is Berrios v. 735 Ave. of the Ams., LLC, NY Slip Op 01940 (1st Dept. 2011
Tomorrow's issue is Labor Law.
