Smith v. Shell Oil Co.
| Decision Date | 08 June 1995 |
| Citation | 85 N.Y.2d 1000,654 N.E.2d 1210,630 N.Y.S.2d 962 |
| Parties | , 654 N.E.2d 1210 Thomas R. SMITH, Appellant, v. SHELL OIL COMPANY et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. Island Pump and Tank Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff was injured when he jumped off an eight-foot A-frame stepladder, which began to tip after he climbed four or five of its stairs to inspect a free-standing, illuminated Shell Oil sign at Rye Shell Auto Care, a Shell service station in Rye, New York. Plaintiff was employed as a maintenance mechanic by third-party defendant Island Pump and Tank Corp. (Island). Island had a contract with Shell Oil Company to effect maintenance and miscellaneous repairs to Shell's facilities on Long Island and in Westchester County. On the date he was injured, plaintiff had been assigned to fix the sign. After he was injured, plaintiff again climbed the ladder, determined that the sign was not working because four lightbulbs needed to be replaced and thereafter replaced the bulbs.
Plaintiff commenced this action against Shell and Rye Shell, as owner and contractor, relying solely on Labor Law § 240(1). Defendants interposed an action for indemnification against Island as plaintiff's employer. Rye Shell, joined by Shell and Island, subsequently moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment in his favor on the issue of liability. Supreme Court granted defendants' and Island's motions for summary judgment, denied plaintiff's cross motion, and dismissed the complaint, reasoning that the Shell sign was neither a building nor a structure within the meaning of Labor Law § 240. The Appellate Division affirmed on the ground that changing a lightbulb is not repairing as that term is used in Labor Law § 240(1) (205 A.D.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crescent Beach Club LLC v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co.
... ... , 7 N.Y.3d 797, 798, 821 N.Y.S.2d 804, 854 N.E.2d 1268 (N.Y. 2006) ; changing a lightbulb, see, e.g. Smith v. Shell Oil Co. , 85 N.Y.2d 1000, 630 N.Y.S.2d 962, 654 N.E.2d 1210 (N.Y. 1995) ; and repairing or replacing components of a fixture that require ... ...
-
La Fontaine v. Albany Management Inc.
... ... it were broken, inoperable or not functioning properly; therefore, plaintiff was not engaged in repairing under Labor Law § 240(1) (see, Smith v. Shell Oil Co., 85 N.Y.2d 1000, 1002, 630 N.Y.S.2d 962, 654 N.E.2d 1210; Izrailev v. Ficarra Furniture of Long Is., 70 N.Y.2d 813, 815, 523 ... ...
-
Ortega v. 669 Meeker Ave., LLC
... ... Dev. Agency, 1 N.Y.3d 526, 528, 770 N.Y.S.2d 682, 802 N.E.2d 1080 ; Joblon v. Solow, 91 N.Y.2d 457, 465, 672 N.Y.S.2d 286, 695 N.E.2d 237 ; Smith v. Shell Oil Co., 85 N.Y.2d 1000, 1002, 630 N.Y.S.2d 962, 654 N.E.2d 1210 ). "Generally, courts have held that work constitutes routine maintenance ... ...
-
Goodwin v. Dix Hills Jewish Ctr.
... ... Solow, 91 N.Y.2d at 465, 672 N.Y.S.2d 286, 695 N.E.2d 237, citing Smith v. Shell Oil Co., 85 N.Y.2d 1000, 630 N.Y.S.2d 962, 654 N.E.2d 1210 and Brown v. Christopher St. Owners Corp., 87 N.Y.2d 938, 641 N.Y.S.2d 221, 663 ... ...