Opinion · New York Court of Appeals

Smith v. Hooker Chemical & Plastic Corp.

Smith v. Hooker Chem. & Plastic Corp., 70 N.Y.2d 994 (New York Court of Appeals 1988)

Type
Opinion
Court
New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction
New York
Date
1988-02-17
Topic
labor-and-employment

OPINION OF THE COURT Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes upon owners and contractors a nondelegable duty to provide adequate safety devices to afford proper protection to those working on a building or structure (Bland v Manocherian, 66 NY2d 452: Zimmer v Chemung *996 County Performing Arts, 65 NY2d 513). The trial court, affirmed by the Appellate Division, did not err in its determinations that defendants violated Labor Law § 240 (1) in not providing adequate safety devices, and that the violation was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. Thus we do not reach the issue whether defendants could be liable if adequate safety devices had been made available to plaintiff but he simply refused to use them (see, 89 AD2d 361 [Simons, J.]).

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Smith v. Hooker Chemical & Plastic Corp.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
9 opinions
SMITH v. HOOKER CHEMICAL PLASTICS CORP.,70 N.Y.2d 994(1988)
ROBERT SMITH, Respondent, v. HOOKER CHEMICAL PLASTICS CORP., Respondent
and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. STEEL CONTRACTING CORPORATION,
Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
Argued January 12, 1988
Decided February 17, 1988
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, Frank R. Bayger, J.Page 995
W. Donn McCarthyfor appellant.Victor Alan Oliverifor Hooker Chemical Plastics Corp., respondent.Paul William BeltzandRussell T. Quinlanfor Robert Smith, respondent.
MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Labor Law §240(1) imposes upon owners and contractors a nondelegable duty to provide adequate safety devices to afford proper protection to those working on a building or structure(Bland v Manocherian,66 N.Y.2d 452;Zimmer v ChemungPage 996County Performing Arts,65 N.Y.2d 513). The trial court, affirmed by the Appellate Division, did not err in its determinations that defendants violated Labor Law §240(1) in not providing adequate safety devices, and that the violation was a proximate cause of plaintiff's injury. Thus we do not reach the issue whether defendants could be liable if adequate safety devices had been made available to plaintiff but he simply refused to use them(see,89 A.D.2d 361[Simons, J.]).

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges KAYE, ALEXANDER, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur; Judges SIMONS and TITONE taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.