Outside Counsel

NY Labor Law §240(1): Fundamental Purpose Overwhelmed by Minutiae

, New York Law Journal

   | 2 Comments

Jason A. Richman writes: One particularly stark example of the vicissitudes of our high court's application of the Scaffold Law arises in the setting of accidents involving not just the elevation-related hazards upon which the statute is focused, but where other more commonplace construction site hazards also occupy a link or two in the chain of proximate causation.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Jessica L. Richman

    Hello, Darren - It is the most dire indicator of a counterargument‘s weakness (or absence) to focus your comments solely on ad hominem attacks of the author and an appeal to accomplishment fallacy, rather than engaging with the analysis set forth in the piece itself. Yours was an intellectually lazy bit of commentary, notwithstanding that you submitted it twice (trouble using technology, perhaps). As the purported "spokesman" of a tort reform organization cannot do better than such fallacious and ignominious attacks, what is actually highlighted (in addition to your lack of professionalism or civility) is the strength of the article‘s legal analysis instead. And let me preempt your inevitable and predictable fallacious response, because educational credentials appear to matter so much to you, by informing you that I was valedictorian of my high school, graduated with dual degrees magna cum laude from Williams College, and attended the University of Pennsylvania Law School prior to actually practicing law (rather than merely pontificating) for the past fifteen years.

  • Darren McKinney, American Tort Reform Association, Washington, D.C. (FHS Class of 1977)

    Where did Mr. Richman go to law school? For that matter, where did he go to high school? I ask because if he‘d submitted this Norm Crosby-like, doubletalk and vocabulary misuse-laden article to Bill Keough, my favorite English teacher at Fairport High School back in the day, he‘d have been lucky to get a D. Which raises another question: How desperate for content is the New York Law Journal? And how few editors does it have that it could allow such childish gibberish to be published?

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202781525338

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.