Memo Concerning Employee Injury Question Pr

Can John Smith recover any damages from his employer, Big Apple, for negligence which resulted in injuries suffered during a fall from a sawhorse; where such a fall occurred while Smith was working on a construction site for Big Apple; where such a fall occurred when Smith climbed upon the sawhorse to try to prevent a cat from jumping onto a freshly cemented walkway to a newly constructed building; when such an incident would have ruined the walkway on the day before the deadline for the building's completion and likely have resulted in Smith's dismissal by Big Apple?

Smith ought to be able to recover damages for his injuries but negligence will likely be apportioned between Big Apple and Smith, reducing the amount of his potential award. There are two different statutory provisions under which Smith can pursue a claim against Big Apple. He should be successful in bringing a claim under º 241(6) of the New York Labor Law, which imposes a duty upon employers in the construction business to maintain safe work areas. He is unlikely to be able to successfully pursue a claim under º 240(1) which imposes absolute liability upon an employer for injuries which occur as a result of unsafe scaffolding and similar devices.

John Smith was hired by Big Apple on June 1, 1994, to work on the construction of a building which was to be completed by Big Apple by October 1, 1994. Big Apple

. . .
particular task or duty." John Smith did not normally do cement work. It is therefore questionable whether he would have been considered competent under ºº 23-1.4(b)(12) and 23-1.5(b) to do such work. An employee who was competent in the cementing of walkways would probably have possessed more knowledge concerning, and experience in, keeping small animals away from freshly cemented sites. If Smith was not competent to do such work, then Big Apple violated º 23-1.5(b), and such a violation would be evidence of negligence under º 241(6). Section 241(6) does not make a defendant contractor/owner per se liable, as does º 240(1). Violation of administrative rules and regulations under º 241(6) are merely evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant contractor owner. The defendant may raise defenses, such as contributory negligence (or comparative negligence) on the part of the plaintiff. Thus, º 241(6) is but a reiteration of common law standards. Long v. Forest-Fehlhaber, 448 N.Y.S.2d at 134-35. Consequently, Smith may be found partially negligent for climbing upon a sawhorse which was not intended to be stood upon. º240(1) This section requires owners and contractors to provide "scaffolding, hoists, stays, lad
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
John Smith, Apple October, Realty Corp, Supply Inc, Consequently Smith, Labor Law, Regulations Apple, Hydro-Electric Co, Tel Co, Journal Jan, º 2416, rules regulations, º 2401, labor law, claim º, title 12, 13 1994 1, 13 1994, 1 col, col 3, 1994 1, 1 col 3, york labor law, 1994 1 col, york thruway authority,
Approximate Word count = 2390
Approximate Pages = 10 (250 words per page)