CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

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

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pedone v. B & B Equipment Co.

In a personal injury action, the plaintiff sued B & B Equipment Co., Inc., alleging a defective backhoe caused injury. A jury found B & B negligent but not the proximate cause. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, set aside this verdict and granted a new trial on causation. On appeal, the order was reversed. The appellate court reinstated the jury's verdict, finding it supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence, particularly given conflicting testimony about how the accident occurred and the jury's role in assessing witness credibility. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion was denied, and the complaint was dismissed.

Personal InjuryNegligenceProximate CauseJury VerdictAppellate ReviewWeight of EvidenceCredibility AssessmentBackhoe AccidentCausationCPLR 4404
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boyd v. Schiavone Construction Co.

Plaintiff Robert Boyd, a drill operating engineer, was severely injured on a subway construction site when a drill rig he was operating tipped over, pinning him to the tracks. The incident occurred after safety chains securing the rig were removed, a procedure whose necessity and execution were disputed. Boyd filed suit under Labor Law § 240 (1) against the contractors, Schiavone Construction Co. and Granite Halmar Construction Company. The Supreme Court initially denied Boyd's motion for summary judgment on liability, citing a potential 'sole proximate cause' defense. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, emphasizing that contributory negligence is not a defense under Labor Law § 240 (1) and found insufficient evidence to establish Boyd as the sole proximate cause of his injuries, thereby granting his motion for summary judgment on liability.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentSole Proximate CauseContributory NegligenceAppellate DivisionDrill Rig AccidentConstruction SafetyGravity-Related AccidentWorker InjuryFall from Height
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2005

Beharry v. Public Storage, Inc.

The plaintiff, Deonarine Beharry, an iron worker, sustained injuries after falling through metal decking while ascending unfinished stairs at a construction site. He sued the property owners, Public Storage, Inc. and PSAC Development Partners, LP, and the general contractor, Racanelli Construction Company, Inc., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law on liability. The defendants appealed, arguing the metal decking was not a safety device and the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, determining that the metal decking served as a functional equivalent of a ladder under Labor Law § 240 (1) and the plaintiff's conduct was not the sole proximate cause.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawScaffold LawLiabilityMetal DeckingSafety DeviceProximate CauseAppellate ReviewJudgment as a Matter of Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Piotrowski v. McGuire Manor, Inc.

Whalen, J., in this dissenting opinion, argues against the majority's decision to reverse a judgment and order a new trial. The dissent contends that the defendant failed to preserve its objection to the jury charge concerning sole proximate cause, specifically regarding the recalcitrant worker defense or an expanded sole proximate cause instruction. Whalen emphasizes that discussions about the verdict sheet do not preserve objections to jury instructions, citing CPLR 4110-b and established case law. Furthermore, the dissenting judge asserts that the jury charge provided (PJI 2:217) was adequate for the sole proximate cause defense and allowed the jury to consider whether the plaintiff's actions were the only substantial factor in causing the injury. The jury's subsequent apportionment of 60% responsibility to the plaintiff also indicated that they did not find the plaintiff to be the sole proximate cause of the accident. Therefore, Whalen would affirm the original judgment, concluding that the issue of the jury charge was not preserved for review.

Jury ChargeSole Proximate CauseRecalcitrant WorkerCPLR 4110-bAppellate ReviewPreservation of ErrorVerdict SheetEvidentiary RulingLabor LawDissenting Opinion
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hain v. Jamison

This case addresses whether Drumm Family Farm, Inc.'s alleged negligence was a proximate cause of a decedent's death. The decedent was struck and killed by a vehicle while attempting to assist a calf that had escaped from the Farm and wandered into a rural roadway. The Farm moved for summary judgment, arguing that the decedent's intervening act of entering the roadway and the other driver's negligence were the sole proximate causes. While the Appellate Division granted the Farm's motion, the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that proximate cause remains a question for the factfinder. The Court reasoned that the risk created by the Farm's negligence (a wandering calf causing a collision) was precisely the risk that materialized, and the decedent's actions could be considered a foreseeable consequence.

Proximate CauseNegligenceSummary JudgmentIntervening ActForeseeabilityFarm Animal LiabilityTraffic AccidentNew York Court of AppealsTort LawCausation
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boots v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.

Peter and Cindy Boots filed a products liability action against Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., alleging injury to Peter Boots from a defective utility knife. Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting no manufacturing defect, no design defect as the proximate cause, substantial modification of the product, and that Plaintiff's own negligence was the sole proximate cause. The court denied the motion for summary judgment on the manufacturing defect claim, finding the plaintiff's expert report admissible. It also denied summary judgment on the design defect claim due to misleading design, and rejected the substantial modification argument. Finally, the court denied the proximate cause argument, as it was not established that Plaintiff's actions were the *sole* cause of injury.

Products LiabilitySummary JudgmentManufacturing DefectDesign DefectProximate CauseExpert WitnessUtility KnifeStrict LiabilityProduct SafetyFederal Civil Procedure
References
38
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02471 [171 AD3d 426]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2019

Mora v. Wythe & Kent Realty LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order granting plaintiff Julian Mora partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiff was injured when unsecured scaffold planks tipped. The court found that the unsecured planks were a proximate cause of the injury, rejecting the defendants' arguments that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident or that a recalcitrant worker defense applied. The decision emphasized that a statutory violation serving as a proximate cause precludes the plaintiff from being solely to blame.

Scaffold AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentLiabilityProximate CauseRecalcitrant WorkerAppellate DecisionConstruction SafetyWorker InjuryUnsecured Equipment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ortiz v. M.J. Peterson Marina Homes Corp.

The court unanimously affirmed an order without costs, referencing the decision made by Supreme Court, Francis, J. The affirming court disagreed with the original finding concerning questions of fact related to proximate cause. The defendants failed to address the proximate cause issue in response to the plaintiffs' cross-appeal, leading to the conclusion that a Labor Law § 240 violation was a proximate cause of the plaintiffs' decedent's fall. However, the plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 claim was properly denied due to factual questions concerning a potential bar by the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Labor Law § 240Proximate CauseSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryFall AccidentWrongful Death
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2011

Kerrigan v. TDX Construction Corp.

This case involves an appeal from an order granting summary judgment to defendants and dismissing the complaint regarding a fatal construction accident. A worker died after being pinned by a boom lift during a lifting operation. The lower court found the decedent's conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident. On appeal, the plaintiff (decedent's wife) argued that the lack of a licensed rigger was also a proximate cause, citing Administrative Code provisions. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that an exemption in the Administrative Code applied, thus no licensed rigger was required, and the plaintiff failed to establish a breach of Labor Law duties or overcome the sole proximate cause defense.

Construction AccidentFatal InjurySummary JudgmentProximate CauseLabor LawAdministrative CodeLicensed RiggerCrane OperationRiggingWorker Supervision
References
2
Case No. 2011 NY Slip Op 31707(U)
Regular Panel Decision

Peters v. New School

Plaintiff was injured after falling through a hole in the floor when a wood beam cracked, causing him to fall while removing plywood sheets. The court found that the defendant failed to provide any safety devices, thus entitling the plaintiff to summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1). The defendant's opposition, claiming the plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker or the sole proximate cause of the accident, was deemed conclusory and insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. As a result, the lower court's denial of summary judgment was unanimously reversed, and the plaintiff's motion was granted.

Labor LawFall from HeightSummary JudgmentSafety DevicesRecalcitrant Worker DefenseProximate CauseAppellate ReversalConstruction AccidentPremises Liability
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 4,414 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

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

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational