Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02589

Regular Panel Decision

May 11, 2023

Leonard v. City of New York

Plaintiff Brian Leonard sustained injuries while attempting to rescue a coworker during a trench collapse at a construction site for the City of New York. He filed a lawsuit alleging violations of Labor Law § 241 (6). The Supreme Court dismissed the claim, rejecting the applicability of the 'danger invites rescue doctrine.' The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, holding that the 'danger invites rescue doctrine' can apply to Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, and found issues of fact regarding the reasonableness of the plaintiff's rescue attempt, thereby denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Danger Invites Rescue DoctrineLabor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code ViolationsSummary Judgment ReversalAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentTrench CollapseComparative NegligenceNondelegable DutyWorker Injury

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jan 23, 1996

Del Vecchio v. State

The claimants, Salvatore and Karen Del Vecchio, appealed an order from the Court of Claims which denied their motion for partial summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and granted the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing that claim. Salvatore Del Vecchio was injured while rescuing a co-worker who fell into Jamaica Bay during bridge construction, arguing his back injuries were a result of the incident caused by unsecured planking and lack of safety devices. The appellate court affirmed the order, holding that Labor Law § 240 (1) provides "exceptional protection" for specific gravity-related accidents (falling from height, struck by falling object) and does not extend to a rescuer like Del Vecchio, who did not sustain a direct gravity-related injury. The majority concluded that the "danger invites rescue" doctrine is not applicable to Labor Law § 240 (1) claims due to the statute's absolute liability and limited scope, which should not be expanded. A dissenting opinion argued that the doctrine should apply to workers injured while rescuing someone imperiled by a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation, emphasizing the statute's purpose of protecting workers and imposing strict liability.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Danger Invites Rescue DoctrineAbsolute LiabilityGravity-Related InjurySummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentElevated WorksiteProximate CauseAppellate Review

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 19, 2012

Kesick v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance

A State Trooper was injured during a rescue operation following a car accident caused by Joseph Prindle. After settling with Prindle, the Trooper sought supplementary uninsured-underinsured motorist (SUM) benefits from his insurer, who denied the claim. The insurer argued the injury did not arise from a motor vehicle accident and that workers' compensation benefits precluded additional recovery. The Supreme Court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues. On appeal, the higher court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that the "danger invites rescue" doctrine could establish the causal link, and the insurer failed to prove duplicative recovery.

Auto AccidentSUM CoverageBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentDanger Invites RescueProximate CauseWorkers' CompensationInsurance Claim DenialAppellate AffirmationPersonal Injury Claim

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Kelley v. Alexander

Selma Kelley and her husband, John Kelley, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Mrs. Helen C. Alexander, d/b/a Beekman’s Roto-Rooter Sewer Service. Mrs. Kelley had fallen into a hole dug by Alexander's employees on her property. The trial court based its summary judgment on the doctrine of assumed risk, finding the danger of the hole open and obvious to Mrs. Kelley. The Kelleys argued that the 'rescue doctrine' should apply, as Mrs. Kelley was attempting to cover the hole to protect young neighborhood children who frequently played in her yard. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the 'rescue doctrine' was not timely raised and, furthermore, was inapplicable because no one was in imminent peril at the time Mrs. Kelley fell. A dissenting opinion argued that Mrs. Kelley was acting under a legal duty as a landowner to protect the children, which should preclude the application of the voluntary assumption of risk doctrine.

Assumed RiskVolenti Non Fit InjuriaRescue DoctrineContributory NegligenceSummary Judgment AppealLandowner LiabilityPremises LiabilityOpen and Obvious DangerPersonal InjuryTexas Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Guarino v. Mine Safety Appliance Co.

This judicial concurrence discusses the limited applicability of the "danger invites rescue" doctrine in breach of warranty cases, arguing against its general application due to concerns of unjustified liability for manufacturers. The opinion emphasizes the importance of maintaining distinctions between breach of warranty and negligence liability, citing a warning against limitless liability without fault from Caruth v. Mariani. The judges concur in result only, advocating for a cautious approach to expanding liability theories.

Danger invites rescue doctrineBreach of warrantyNegligence liabilityProduct liabilityJudicial interpretationConcurring opinionLiability without faultSocial justice in lawJudicial restraintCourt of Appeals

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Butler v. County of Chautauqua

The plaintiff, an employee of Holmes and Murphy, Inc., was injured when his foot was run over by his employer’s roller while repaving a County highway. He alleged violations of Labor Law § 241 (6), § 200, and common-law negligence against the County of Chautauqua. The Supreme Court denied the County's motion for summary judgment, and this appellate court affirmed that decision. The court found 12 NYCKR 23-1.33 (b) (1) (i) applicable under Labor Law § 241 (6) via the 'danger invites rescue' doctrine, which also applied to the other claims, including an amended claim under Highway Law § 139.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawCommon-Law NegligenceDanger Invites Rescue DoctrinePedestrian ProtectionHighway ConstructionPersonal InjuryAppellate AffirmationStatutory InterpretationDuty of Care

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Velazquez v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case concerns an appeal from a judgment by the Supreme Court, New York County, which dismissed a home attendant's complaint against municipal defendants. The plaintiff was injured while assisting two EMS workers, employees of the defendants, in carrying her client down a stairway. The appellate court unanimously reversed the lower court's decision, denying the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law, reinstating the complaint, and remanding the case for a new trial. The court ruled that governmental immunity does not protect defendants from liability for negligence in performing ministerial acts. Additionally, under the "danger invites rescue" doctrine, the EMS workers owed a duty of care to the plaintiff as a rescuer. The court concluded that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to raise a factual issue regarding the EMS workers' negligence, thus warranting a new trial.

Governmental ImmunityMinisterial ActDanger Invites Rescue DoctrineDuty of CareNegligencePrima Facie CaseJudgment as a Matter of LawRescuer InjuryEMS WorkersHome Attendant

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Lennon Company v. Ridge

This case concerns the application of the "rescue doctrine" in workers' compensation law in Tennessee. Charles A. Eidge, an employee of The Lennon Company, Inc., was injured while attempting to rescue an employee of another company, Sam Raider Company, Inc., who was involved in an accident on the same premises. The trial court awarded Eidge compensation benefits from his employer, but The Lennon Company, Inc. appealed. The Supreme Court of Tennessee reviewed whether an injury sustained by an employee while rescuing a stranger, without the employer's pecuniary interest or responsibility for the danger, "arises out of and in the course of employment." The Court concluded that such an injury does not meet this criteria under Tennessee's Workmen's Compensation Law, distinguishing its application from tort law's foreseeability concepts. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment and dismissed the suit, denying compensation.

Rescue DoctrineWorkers' CompensationScope of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentEmployer LiabilityThird-Party RescueDeviation from DutyTennessee LawAppellate Review

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Hall v. Mason Dixon Lines, Inc.

In this dissenting opinion, Justice Drowota argues against the established precedent in Tennessee Workers' Compensation cases regarding the rescue doctrine. The dissent advocates for the adoption of the rescue doctrine, contending that the prior ruling in *Lennon Co., Inc. v. Ridge* was incorrectly decided and should be overturned. Justice Drowota emphasizes the humanitarian and public policy implications, asserting that the Workers' Compensation Act should extend coverage to traveling employees who render assistance in emergencies encountered during their work, particularly on highways. The opinion criticizes the perceived arbitrariness of denying recovery to an employee who rescues a stranger while allowing it for those who protect employer property or assist fellow employees.

Workers' CompensationRescue DoctrineTraveling EmployeeDissenting OpinionTennessee LawCausal NexusPublic PolicyHumanitarian LegislationHighway SafetyEmployer Liability

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 05, 1963

Halepeska v. Callihan Interests, Inc.

The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed a wrongful death action brought by Natalie Halepeska and her children against Callihan Interests, Inc., following the death of Dennis L. Halepeska in a gas well blowout. The trial court initially ruled for the plaintiffs, but the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, applying the "no duty" and "volenti non fit injuria" doctrines based on a standard that Halepeska "should have known" the danger. The Supreme Court clarified that these doctrines require actual knowledge and appreciation of the danger, or that the danger be so open and obvious that knowledge is legally charged. Finding the lower courts erred in their application of the "should have known" standard and noting the jury found Halepeska lacked full knowledge and appreciation, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Civil Appeals' judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration of the evidentiary sufficiency.

Wrongful DeathNegligenceContributory NegligencePremises LiabilityVolenti Non Fit InjuriaAssumed RiskGas Well BlowoutIndependent ContractorBusiness InviteeTexas Law

References

Showing 1-10 of 1,716 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02589

Regular Panel Decision

May 11, 2023

Leonard v. City of New York

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jan 23, 1996

Del Vecchio v. State

Labor Law § 240 (1)Danger Invites Rescue DoctrineAbsolute LiabilityGravity-Related InjurySummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentElevated WorksiteProximate CauseAppellate Review

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 19, 2012

Kesick v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance

Auto AccidentSUM CoverageBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentDanger Invites RescueProximate CauseWorkers' CompensationInsurance Claim DenialAppellate AffirmationPersonal Injury Claim

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Kelley v. Alexander

Assumed RiskVolenti Non Fit InjuriaRescue DoctrineContributory NegligenceSummary Judgment AppealLandowner LiabilityPremises LiabilityOpen and Obvious DangerPersonal InjuryTexas Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Guarino v. Mine Safety Appliance Co.

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Butler v. County of Chautauqua

Summary JudgmentLabor LawCommon-Law NegligenceDanger Invites Rescue DoctrinePedestrian ProtectionHighway ConstructionPersonal InjuryAppellate AffirmationStatutory InterpretationDuty of Care

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Velazquez v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Governmental ImmunityMinisterial ActDanger Invites Rescue DoctrineDuty of CareNegligencePrima Facie CaseJudgment as a Matter of LawRescuer InjuryEMS WorkersHome Attendant

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Lennon Company v. Ridge

Rescue DoctrineWorkers' CompensationScope of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentEmployer LiabilityThird-Party RescueDeviation from DutyTennessee LawAppellate Review

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Hall v. Mason Dixon Lines, Inc.

Workers' CompensationRescue DoctrineTraveling EmployeeDissenting OpinionTennessee LawCausal NexusPublic PolicyHumanitarian LegislationHighway SafetyEmployer Liability

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 05, 1963

Halepeska v. Callihan Interests, Inc.

Wrongful DeathNegligenceContributory NegligencePremises LiabilityVolenti Non Fit InjuriaAssumed RiskGas Well BlowoutIndependent ContractorBusiness InviteeTexas Law

References

Showing 1-10 of 1,716 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.