Covey v. Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
| Decision Date | 06 February 1997 |
| Citation | 89 N.Y.2d 952,678 N.E.2d 466,655 N.Y.S.2d 854 |
| Parties | , 678 N.E.2d 466 Richard COVEY, Respondent, v. IROQUOIS GAS TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, L.P., et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the negative.
Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) to recover damages for personal injuries he sustained when he fell approximately 20 feet from a backhoe into a trench during the course of his employment with a contractor engaged by defendants to construct a pipeline. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was attempting to replace hydraulic fluid in the backhoe, which was adjacent to the pipeline trench. The Appellate Division correctly determined that plaintiff was engaged in an activity protected under Labor Law § 240(1), inasmuch as the work performed by plaintiff was part of the construction of the pipeline (see, Lombardi v. Stout, 80 N.Y.2d 290, 296, 590 N.Y.S.2d 55, 604 N.E.2d 117). In addition, under the circumstances of this case, plaintiff's fall from the backhoe into the 15-foot deep excavation after attempting to steady himself by grabbing an improperly secured handrail was the type of elevation-related risk for which Labor Law § 240(1) provides protection (see, Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 N.Y.2d 555, 560-562, 606 N.Y.S.2d 127, 626 N.E.2d 912).
TITONE, J., taking no part.
Order affirmed, etc.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gray v. City of N.Y.
...[1999]; see also O'Hare v. City of New York, 280 A.D.2d 458, 458, 720 N.Y.S.2d 523 [2001]; Covey v. Iroquois Gas Transmission Sys., 89 N.Y.2d 952, 953-954, 655 N.Y.S.2d 854, 678 N.E.2d 466 [1997] ). Courts may also consider whether plaintiff was a "member of a team that undertook an enumera......
-
Wrobel v. Town of Pendleton
...falls into excavated areas, as opposed to mere holes in the ground such as the one here ( see Covey v. Iroquois Gas Transmission Sys., 89 N.Y.2d 952, 953–954, 655 N.Y.S.2d 854, 678 N.E.2d 466; Wild v. Marrano/Marc Equity Corp., 75 A.D.3d 1099, 1099, 903 N.Y.S.2d 288; Congi v. Niagara Fronti......
-
Hutchins v. Finch, Pruyn & Co. Inc.
...of this statute (see, Covey v. Iroquois Gas Transmission Sys., 218 A.D.2d 197, 198-199, 637 N.Y.S.2d 992, affd. 89 N.Y.2d 952, 655 N.Y.S.2d 854, 678 N.E.2d 466; see also, Demeza v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., supra, at 744, 680 N.Y.S.2d 729; Vilardi v. Berley, 201 A.D.2d 641, 643, 608 N.Y.S.2......
-
Salzer v. Benderson Dev. Co.
...64 A.D.3d at 1075, 883 N.Y.S.2d 630 ; Covey v. Iroquois Gas Transmission Sys., 218 A.D.2d 197, 201, 637 N.Y.S.2d 992 [1996], affd. 89 N.Y.2d 952, 655 N.Y.S.2d 854, 678 N.E.2d 466 [1997] ). As a final matter, defendants have abandoned any contentions regarding their alternative request for s......