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

Haystrand v. County of Ontario

The plaintiff was injured after falling from a scaffold while painting a building owned by the defendant. The plaintiff commenced an action alleging violations of the Labor Law, specifically Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on this claim. On appeal, the defendant contended that the court erred, arguing that the plaintiff's failure to use the scaffold's locking mechanism was dispositive. The appellate court rejected this argument, stating that an owner's statutory duty under Labor Law § 240 (1) requires furnishing, placing, and operating safety devices to give proper protection, and is not met merely by making devices available. The court also determined that the 'recalcitrant worker' doctrine did not apply because the defendant did not provide the safety devices. The plaintiff's own negligence was deemed irrelevant to a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. The order was unanimously affirmed with costs.

Labor Law § 240 (1)scaffold accidentfall from heightowner liabilitystatutory dutysummary judgmentrecalcitrant worker doctrinecontributory negligenceappellate reviewconstruction accident
References
5
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cartella v. Margaret Woodbury Strong Museum

The court reversed an order, granting summary judgment to the plaintiff, who fell from an elevated plank or scaffolding while repairing a building ceiling. The plank lacked guardrails and safety devices, which was found to be a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The decision emphasizes that the failure to provide necessary safety devices, regardless of the scaffold's height, constitutes a violation of this labor law section.

Scaffolding AccidentLabor Law ViolationSummary Judgment GrantedSafety Device FailureElevated WorkConstruction SafetyAppellate ReviewWorker FallGuardrail AbsenceLiability
References
3
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aburto v. City of New York

Plaintiff was injured when a scaffold collapsed during dismantling, with no adequate safety devices available. The plaintiff sought partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court denied this motion. On appeal, the court reversed the denial, granting the plaintiff's motion. It found that the defendants violated Labor Law § 240 (1) and proximately caused the injuries, noting that the provided safety devices were insufficient to prevent a fall through a collapsing scaffold. The court also clarified that any alleged comparative negligence by the plaintiff does not preclude summary judgment in this context.

Scaffold CollapseLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentWorkplace SafetyProximate CauseComparative NegligenceFall ProtectionSafety Devices
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howe v. Syracuse University

Plaintiff initiated legal action to seek compensation for injuries sustained during the demolition of a 15-foot cinder block wall, which collapsed and crushed the scaffolding he was on, leading to a fall. The scaffolding lacked safety railings, and the plaintiff was not using safety lines. Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment regarding liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). However, the appellate court reversed this decision, determining that the defendants failed to provide adequate safety devices, which proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries. The court also rejected the defendants' arguments that the plaintiff was solely responsible or that the 'recalcitrant worker' defense applied, emphasizing the lack of provided safety devices for refusal.

Workers' CompensationScaffolding CollapseDemolition AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Safety Device FailureProximate CauseRecalcitrant Worker DefensePartial Summary JudgmentAppellate ReversalOnondaga County
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 994 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