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
Dec 13, 1978

Waters v. Patent Scaffold Co.

This personal injury action arises from Charles Waters' fall from a scaffolding I-beam in 1970, allegedly unbolted by a co-worker. Waters was employed by I. Rosen & Sons, Inc., a masonry subcontractor. The defendants included the general contractor-owner and Patent Scaffold Co., which leased and initially installed the scaffolding. The court determined that Patent Scaffold Co. was an independent supplier, not a contractor, and thus not liable under Labor Law § 240, nor for common-law negligence or strict liability, as the alleged duties devolved upon the subcontractor. The Supreme Court's order partially granting summary judgment to Patent Scaffold Co. was modified to grant summary judgment on all causes of action, and as modified, affirmed.

Personal InjuryScaffolding AccidentLabor Law § 240Summary JudgmentContractor LiabilityLessor LiabilitySubcontractor ResponsibilityConstruction Site SafetyDuty to SuperviseStrict Liability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sharpe v. Safway Scaffolds Co. of Houston

Charles Michael Sharpe, an apprentice electrician, was injured when the movable scaffolding he was working on overturned. He sued Safway Scaffolds Company of Houston, Inc. (lessor) and Fairbanks Company (wheel manufacturer). Fairbanks and the scaffolding manufacturer (Saf-way Steel Products) settled before trial. The jury found that the scaffolding was not defective, that Sharpe's negligence was the proximate cause of the accident, and awarded "0" damages. Sharpe appealed, arguing legal and factual insufficiency of evidence regarding the scaffolding's defectiveness and warnings, improper cross-examination, improper special issue submission, and failure to grant a mistrial due to jury conduct. The appellate court reviewed the evidence, finding conflicting testimony created fact issues for the jury, and upheld the jury's findings on negligence and lack of damages, bound by precedent. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment.

Personal InjuryScaffolding AccidentNegligenceProduct LiabilityLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyDirected VerdictJury MisconductProximate CauseExpert Testimony
References
19
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00748 [136 AD3d 423]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2016

DaSilva v. Everest Scaffolding, Inc.

Plaintiff Jose Carlos DaSilva was granted partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Structural Preservation Systems, LLC (SPS) and Archstone entities, after falling from scaffolding that moved. The court found his accident was proximately caused by a Labor Law violation and rejected the recalcitrant worker defense due to lack of evidence he knew he was expected to use a ladder. Defendant Everest Scaffolding, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing a contractual indemnification cross-claim was granted. However, SPS and Archstone's motion to dismiss common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims was denied, as triable issues of fact existed regarding SPS's supervisory control and constructive notice. The Appellate Division affirmed these lower court orders.

Scaffolding AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSupervisory ControlConstructive NoticeThird-Party ClaimAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cassidy v. Highrise Hoisting & Scaffolding, Inc.

A laborer, referred to as the plaintiff, sustained neck and back injuries after falling from a temporary loading dock when its safety railing detached. The incident occurred at a construction site owned by Midtown West A.L.L.C. and general contracted by Rockrose GC MWA L.L.C., with the loading dock installed by Highrise Hoisting & Scaffolding, Inc. The motion court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on Labor Law § 240 (1) claims, holding the owner and general contractor liable for the failure of the elevated platform designed to protect from gravity-related hazards. However, the plaintiff's claims under Labor Law § 241 (6), Labor Law § 200, and common-law negligence were dismissed due to the loading dock being classified as a platform, not a scaffold, and a lack of evidence regarding notice of an improperly reattached rail. The appellate court affirmed these rulings, also declining to consider a new argument raised by the defendants on appeal.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentElevated PlatformSafety RailGravity-Related HazardIndustrial Code § 23-1.22(c)(2)NegligenceSite Safety Expert
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2004

Morales v. Spring Scaffolding, Inc.

A construction worker, injured during his lunch break when a negligently constructed sidewalk bridge collapsed, brought suit under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The central legal question addressed was whether Labor Law § 240 (1), known as the "scaffold law," applies to injuries sustained during a lunch break. The Court found that the statute does apply, as the sidewalk bridge was an integral part of the work site and the accident was due to its improper construction, not solely the worker's conduct. The decision held the building owners liable under Labor Law § 240 (1). However, the Court dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims against Spring Scaffolding, Inc., the erector of the bridge, concluding it was not an owner, contractor, or statutory agent at the time of the accident, but affirmed that Spring could face liability under common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 due to faulty construction.

Labor Law 240(1)Scaffold LawConstruction AccidentWorker InjuryLunch BreakSidewalk BridgeParapet Wall CollapseNegligent ConstructionOwner LiabilityContractor Liability
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 1986

La Lima v. Epstein

Joseph La Lima, a carpenter, sustained injuries when a scaffold platform collapsed beneath him, causing him to fall. He and his wife initiated an action against Stanley Epstein (owner), J.B.G. Restaurants (lessee), and D.V.H. Construction, Inc. (general contractor) under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability. On appeal, the order was reversed, and the motion was granted, as the court found a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) due to the scaffold's collapse, deeming contributory negligence irrelevant. However, cross-claims for indemnification and contribution among the defendants were not summarily resolved, as factual issues regarding fault and scaffold ownership remained, necessitating a trial for those claims.

Scaffold CollapseLabor Law § 240 (1)Personal Injury DamagesSummary JudgmentNondelegable DutyOwner LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityLessee LiabilityAppellate ReviewContributory Negligence
References
12
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06419 [154 AD3d 139]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 12, 2017

Matter of 91st St. Crane Collapse Litig.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed consolidated wrongful death actions stemming from a 2008 crane collapse in Manhattan, which caused the deaths of Donald Christopher Leo and Ramadan Kurtaj. Plaintiffs, including Maria Leo and Xhevahire Sinanaj, sued James F. Lomma and his companies (J.F. Lomma, Inc. and New York Crane & Equipment Corp.) alleging negligence and reckless conduct related to a defective crane bearing. The court affirmed the jury's decision to pierce the corporate veil and to preclude a defense expert, finding Lomma personally liable due to his actions. However, the appellate court significantly reduced the jury's substantial awards for preimpact terror, conscious pain and suffering, and punitive damages, deeming them excessive. The judgment was modified, contingent on the plaintiffs stipulating to the reduced amounts.

Crane CollapseWrongful DeathCorporate Veil PiercingPunitive DamagesExpert Testimony PreclusionNegligenceConstruction AccidentConscious Pain and SufferingPreimpact TerrorDefective Weld
References
33
Case No. CA 10-02273
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2011

MAZURETT, JUAN v. ROCHESTER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

The plaintiffs, Juan Mazurett and Theresa Mazurett, commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action against the Rochester City School District after Juan Mazurett was injured in a fall from a collapsing scaffold at a construction site. The accident occurred while he was attempting to climb the scaffold provided by his employer, the general contractor. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and partially denied the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the plaintiffs established a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) due to the scaffold's collapse. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident, finding no evidence that the plaintiff refused to use available safety devices.

Personal InjuryScaffold AccidentLabor Law ViolationConstruction Site SafetyProximate CauseSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewWorker SafetyStatutory DutyNew York Law
References
11
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00720 [202 AD3d 433]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2022

Galeno v. Everest Scaffolding, Inc.

Plaintiff Fidel Galeno was injured in December 2012 after falling through a sidewalk shed roof while performing façade repairs on a building. The building was owned by Elk 22 Realty LLC, net leased to 20 West, and managed by ABS Partners Real Estate, LLC (collectively, the owner defendants). Everest Scaffolding, Inc. constructed the sidewalk shed, and Schnelbacher-Sendon Group, LLC (SSG) was hired for façade repairs, subcontracting work to Ramon Construction Corporation (Ramon), plaintiff's employer. The Supreme Court denied conditional summary judgment for the owner defendants on contractual indemnification against SSG and Ramon, and granted SSG's and Ramon's motions for summary judgment dismissing contractual indemnification and common-law indemnification/contribution claims. The Supreme Court also denied Everest's motion to dismiss common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, granted dismissal of contractual indemnification claims against Everest by 20 West and ABS, and denied the owner defendants' cross-motion for conditional summary judgment against Everest. The Appellate Division modified the orders, denying SSG's, Ramon's, and Everest's motions to the extent they sought dismissal of 20 West and ABS's contractual indemnification claims against them, and otherwise affirmed. Issues of fact concerning proximate cause by Everest or Ramon remain, precluding dismissal of negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Everest. Common-law indemnification and contribution claims against SSG were properly dismissed due to lack of negligence or supervision by SSG, while similar claims against Ramon were precluded by the Workers' Compensation Law.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySidewalk Shed AccidentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimsSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewProximate CauseConstruction Accident
References
6
Case No. 01-09-00360-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2011

AMS Construction Company, Inc. D/B/A AMS Staff Leasing (AMS) v. Osman L. Sosa K.H.K. Scaffolding Houston, Inc.

An employer, K.H.K. Scaffolding Houston, Inc., sued its staff leasing company, AMS Construction Company, Inc. d/b/a AMS Staff Leasing, for breaching their agreement to provide workers' compensation insurance for an injured employee. A jury found AMS liable for breach of contract and fraud, leading to a judgment for KHK. AMS appealed, raising issues of subject matter jurisdiction, sufficiency of evidence for breach of contract, waiver defense, and an alleged collusive agreement. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, determining that the trial court had jurisdiction and that legally sufficient evidence supported the breach of contract finding.

Workers' CompensationBreach of ContractFraudStaff Leasing AgreementEmployee LeasingSubject Matter JurisdictionAppellate ReviewIndemnificationTexas LawJury Verdict
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 707 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