Cahill v. TRIBOROUGH
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | R.S. SMITH, J. |
| Citation | 790 N.Y.S.2d 74,823 N.E.2d 439,4 N.Y.3d 35 |
| Parties | TIMOTHY CAHILL, Respondent, v. TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEL AUTHORITY, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 21 December 2004 |
4 N.Y.3d 35
823 N.E.2d 439
790 N.Y.S.2d 74
v.
TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEL AUTHORITY, Appellant
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
Argued November 16, 2004.
Decided December 21, 2004.
Fischbein Badillo Wagner Harding, New York City (Christopher
Chief Judge KAYE and Judges G.B. SMITH, CIPARICK, ROSENBLATT, GRAFFEO and READ concur.
OPINION OF THE COURT
R.S. SMITH, J.
We decide in this case that, where an employer has made available adequate safety devices and an employee has been instructed to use them, the employee may not recover under Labor Law § 240 (1) for injuries caused solely by his violation of those instructions, even though the instructions were given several weeks before the accident occurred.
Facts and Procedural History
Since we are reviewing a grant of summary judgment in plaintiff's favor, we state the version of the facts most favorable to defendant that the evidence will support.
Plaintiff was employed in the reconstruction and repair of the Triborough Bridge. His work required him to go up and down wall-like structures known as "forms." A mechanical device called a "man lift" was sometimes available for this purpose, but when it was unavailable employees were expected to climb and to descend by using safety lines affixed to the forms. Employees
With other workers on the Triborough Bridge construction site, plaintiff attended frequent safety talks that included instruction in the use of safety lines. In addition, several weeks before the accident involved in this case, plaintiff's supervisor, Anthony Dellamorte, "caught him" climbing a form without using a safety line. (Dellamorte remembered this incident as "a month-and-a-half" before the accident; plaintiff thought it was "less than a month" before.) Dellamorte explained to plaintiff the need to attach his lanyard to the safety line when climbing, and plaintiff, for the time being, complied.
On the day of the accident, plaintiff was working inside the upper part of a form, applying grease from a bucket to certain rods. He ran out of grease, went down to the ground to refill his bucket, and started to climb up again. The man lift was in use elsewhere, but plaintiff could readily have used a safety line to climb; such a line was attached to the side of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wojcik v. 42ND Street Development Project, No. 02 Civ. 7019(CSH).
...before the accident were a sufficient basis for defendant's recalcitrant worker defense. Cahill v. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, 4 N.Y.3d 35, 39, 790 N.Y.S.2d 74, 823 N.E.2d 439 In order to prevail on their motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) claim, defen......
-
Scott v. 122 E. 42 St. LLC, No. 17472/2007.
...caused his or her injuries ( see, Robinson v. East Med. Ctr., LP, 6 N.Y.3d 550, 554 [2006];Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 N.Y.3d 35, 39 [2004];Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1 N.Y.3d 280, 287 [2003] ). “Where there is no statutory violation, or where the pla......
-
Wallace v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., No. 11 Civ. 5419(AJN).
...or control the work” and “the plaintiff's own negligence does not furnish a defense,” Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 N.Y.3d 35, 39, 790 N.Y.S.2d 74, 823 N.E.2d 439 (2004)—courts have been careful to avoid extending the statute's protections beyond what the legislature intende......
-
FTBK Investor II LLC v. Genesis Holding LLC, 810163/2011
...opponent. Vega v. Restani Constr. Corp., 18 N.Y.3d at 503, 942 N.Y.S.2d 13, 965 N.E.2d 240 ; Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 N.Y.3d 35, 37, 790 N.Y.S.2d 74, 823 N.E.2d 439 (2004).III. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTThe parties do not dispute that Genesis Holding execut......
-
Scott v. 122 E. 42 St. LLC, No. 17472/2007.
...caused his or her injuries ( see, Robinson v. East Med. Ctr., LP, 6 N.Y.3d 550, 554 [2006];Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 N.Y.3d 35, 39 [2004];Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1 N.Y.3d 280, 287 [2003] ). “Where there is no statutory violation, or where the pla......
-
FTBK Investor II LLC v. Genesis Holding LLC, 810163/2011
...opponent. Vega v. Restani Constr. Corp., 18 N.Y.3d at 503, 942 N.Y.S.2d 13, 965 N.E.2d 240 ; Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 N.Y.3d 35, 37, 790 N.Y.S.2d 74, 823 N.E.2d 439 (2004).III. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTThe parties do not dispute that Genesis Holding execut......
-
Dua v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Parks & Recreation, 110344
...747 ; Vega v. Restani Constr. Corp. , 18 N.Y.3d at 503, 942 N.Y.S.2d 13, 965 N.E.2d 240 ; Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth. , 4 N.Y.3d 35, 37, 790 N.Y.S.2d 74, 823 N.E.2d 439 (2004). For purposes of determining the motion and cross-motion for summary judgment, at the oral argument ......
-
Fuller & D'Angelo, P.C. v. Cornerstone Hospitality Advisors, Index No. 111607/2009
...judgment, the court construes the evidence in the light most favorable to the opponents. Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 N.Y.3d 35, 37 (2004). Further, a "motion for summary judgment shall be supported . . . by a copy of the pleadings." C.P.L.R. § 3212(b) (emphasisPage 3added)......