Falling Object Liability

, New York Law Journal

   | 0 Comments

In his Construction Accident Litigation column, Brian J. Shoot writes: Per a Court of Appeals decision rendered earlier this year, Labor Law §240(1) applies only if the plaintiff demonstrates that the object that fell was being hoisted or secured at the time it fell, or "required securing for the purposes of the undertaking." The first option is simple enough. But when does an object "require securing"? For that matter, what is the pertinent "undertaking"?

This article has been archived, and is no longer available on this website.

View this content exclusively through LexisNexis® Here

Not a LexisNexis® 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.com® and Nexis®. 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Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.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

Originally appeared in print as Falling Object Liability: 'For the Purposes of the Undertaking'

What's being said

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

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202654579514

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.