CompFox AI Summary
A roofer, referred to as the plaintiff, was injured while working on a shopping center roof for the defendants. The accident occurred when a roll carrier, used to dispense roofing material, shifted on a slippery roof, causing a heavy membrane roll to drop and its T-handle to strike the plaintiff's head. The plaintiff initiated a personal injury action, asserting claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and partially granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and a portion of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding a physically significant elevation differential due to the weight of the falling object, but affirmed the existence of triable issues of fact regarding proximate causation. The court also affirmed the rulings on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, upholding the denial of summary judgment for slipping hazards and dismissing the claim related to protective headgear. The final order modified the Supreme Court's decision by denying the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and affirmed the remainder.
Jackson v. Heitman Funds/191 Colonie LLC is a workers' compensation case decided in Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
A roofer, referred to as the plaintiff, was injured while working on a shopping center roof for the defendants. The accident occurred when a roll carrier, used to dispense roofing material, shifted on a slippery roof, causing a heavy membrane roll to drop and its T-handle to strike the plaintiff's head. The plaintiff initiated a personal injury action, asserting claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and partially granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and a portion of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding a physically significant elevation differential due to the weight of the falling object, but affirmed the existence of triable issues of fact regarding proximate causation. The court also affirmed the rulings on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, upholding the denial of summary judgment for slipping hazards and dismissing the claim related to protective headgear. The final order modified the Supreme Court's decision by denying the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and affirmed the remainder.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.