Curtis v. State
| Decision Date | 30 December 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 43010,43010 |
| Citation | 275 N.Y.S.2d 992,27 A.D.2d 628 |
| Parties | Mary K. CURTIS, as Administratrix of the Estate of William D. Curtis, Deceased, Respondent-Appellant, v. STATE of New York, Appellant-Respondent. Claim |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., Donald D. Gulling, Jr., Albany, for appellant.
Connolly, Mirch, Murphy & Malone, J. Joseph Murphy, Troy, for respondent.
Before GIBSON, P.J., and HERLIHY, REYNOLDS, STALEY and BRINK, JJ.
Appeal by the State from a judgment of the Court of Claims which awarded damages for the death of claimant's intestate upon a finding of the State's negligence in violating section 23--9.1 of the Industrial Code (12 NYCRR 23--9.1) dealing, in part, with the placing of structural steel members; the Court of Claims holding that the section 23--9.1 'rule or standard imposed a nondelegable duty upon the State as 'owner' under section 241 of the Labor Law.' Cross appeal on the ground of inadequacy.
Claimant's intestate, in the course of his employment by the State's general contractor for the construction of an elevated concrete bridge, fell when a metal I beam, which had been hoisted for placement on upright concrete columns, tipped while decedent was upon it, after he had released the cables with which the beam was slung from the hoisting crane, so that the beam was then supported only by its own weight instead of being secured to the column before removal of the sling and cables. This, decedent could have accomplished from the scaffolding in place, instead of which, in the words of his coemployee, he 'jumped up on the 'I' beam to walk out onto it, to unfasten the slings.'
Section 241 of the Labor Law, as constituted on the date of the accident of September 4, 1963 which gave rise to this claim, imposes upon owners, contractors and subcontractors the duty of providing reasonable and adequate protection to workmen in 'areas, buildings or structures in which construction * * * work is being performed'. Clearly, the statute requires the owner to keep these areas free of common hazards and does not impose upon him liability for the manner in which the details of the work are performed under the immediate supervision of his contractor or subcontractor. (Cangiano v. LoBosco & Son, 23 A.D.2d 860, 259 N.Y.S.2d 197.) Here the accident occurred in an instant by reason of the employee's act, in connection with the placement of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kajowski v. Irvico Realty Corp.
...Law, as it was not 'constructing or demolishing buildings or doing any excavating in connection therewith' (cf. Curtis v. State of New York, 27 A.D.2d 628, 275 N.Y.S.2d 992, affd. 23 N.Y.2d 976, 298 N.Y.S.2d 991, 246 N.E.2d 751; Olson v. 480 Park Ave. Corp., 12 A.D.2d 960, 211 N.Y.S.2d 100)......
-
Horan v. Dormitory Authority
...879, 204 N.E.2d 208). Our court has dealt with section 241 in accordance with these Court of Appeals holdings in Curtis v. State of New York, 27 A.D.2d 628, 275 N.Y.S.2d 992, affd. 23 N.Y.2d 976, 298 N.Y.S.2d 991, 246 N.E.2d 751 and Leahy v. Botnick, 35 A.D.2d 898, 315 N.Y.S.2d 700. It is o......
-
Pastoriza v. State
...section of § 240 of the Labor Law and is not applicable to the law as presently amended. The same is true of Curtis v. State of New York, 27 A.D.2d 628, 275 N.Y.S.2d 992. Similarly, Olson v. 480 Park Avenue Corp., 12 A.D.2d 960, 211 N.Y.S.2d 100, dealt with an interpretation of § 241 of the......
-
Leahy v. Botnick
...was not responsible for the instant accident which arose solely out of a detail of the immediate work process (Curtis v. State of New York, 27 A.D.2d 628, 275 N.Y.S.2d 992, affd. 23 N.Y.2d 976, 298 N.Y.S.2d 991, 246 N.E.2d 751; Cangiano v. Lo Bosco & Son, 23 A.D.2d 860, 239 N.Y.S.2d 197, af......