Practice point:
In evaluating a claim under Labor Law § 240(1), the single
decisive question is whether plaintiff's injuries were the direct consequence
of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a
physically significant elevation differential. It is well settled that failure
to properly secure a ladder to insure that it remains steady and erect while
being used constitutes a statutory violation. Plaintiff's testimony that the
ladder he was using was both unsteady as he was ascending it and too short to
enable him to reach the window he was cleaning establishes prima facie that
defendants failed to provide him with an adequate safety device under Labor Law
§ 240(1) and that their failure proximately caused his injuries.
Student note: To rebut plaintiff's prima facie case,
defendants asserted that plaintiff was negligent because he was on top of the
ladder. However, because plaintiff established that no adequate safety device
was provided, his own negligence, if any, is of no consequence.
Case: Cuentas v. Sephora USA, Inc., NY Slip Op 00257 (1st Dept. 2013).
Tomorrow’s issue: Summary judgment as to liability denied.
