![]() ![]() SCAFFOLDS MUST BE ERECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DESIGN AND/OR MANUFACTURERS’į. INSPECT ALL EQUIPMENT BEFORE USING, Never use any equipment that is damaged or defective in any way. These conditions should be corrected or avoided as noted in the following sections.ĭ. high tension wires, unguarded openings, and other hazardous conditions created by other trades. A survey shall be made of the job site for hazards, such as untamped earth fills, ditches. FOLLOW ALL STATE, LOCAL AND FEDERAL CODES, ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS pertaining to scaffolding.Ĭ. POST THESE SCAFFOLDING SAFETY GUIDELINES in a conspicuous place and be sure that all persons who erect, dismantle or use scaffolding are aware of them.ī. ![]() federal or other government statute or regulation, said statute or regulation shall supersede these guidelines and it shall be the responsibility of each user to comply therewith.Ī. If these guidelines in any way conflict with any state. These guidelines do not purport to be all-inclusive nor to supplant or replace other additional safety and precautionary measures to cover usual or unusual conditions. But, in my view, this argument is terribly flawed on policy grounds: simply put, if defendants' argument were allowed to succeed, they would be effectively discouraged from providing their employee construction workers with adequate safety devices at work sites, instead urging their employees to fashion their own protective equipment - a result that is directly at odds with the stated purpose for Labor Law §240(1).It shall be the responsibility of all users to read and comply with the following common sense guidelines which are designed to promote safety in the erecting, dismantling and use of Scaffolds. that he was not provided with an adequate safety device to do his work, as required by Labor Law §240(1), and that this statutory violation was a proximate cause of his injury ( see Dos Santos v State of New York, 300 AD2d 434 Pineda v Kechek Realty Corp., 285 AD2d 496, 497)." Reading between the lines of this decision, it appears that the defendants had argued in the lower court that the plaintiff should be barred from recovering because he erected the scaffold that collapsed, and therefore, was solely at fault for his own accident. In its April 13 order reversing that part of the lower court's order that denied his motion seeking summary judgment based on a violation of New York Labor Law §240(1), New York's Appellate Division, Second Department stated as follows: "Since the scaffold collapsed, the plaintiff established. Not surprisingly, shortly after plaintiff began using the scaffold, it collapsed. After doing so - but before using it - the plaintiff showed the completed scaffold to his boss, who apparently approved of its construction. ![]() The interesting aspect to this case is that this was no o rdinary scaffold to the contrary, since he needed to use a scaffold to complete his work, and there was no scaffold at the worksite, his employer provided him with both materials and specific instructions on how to put together the scaffold. Mario Genovesi & Sons, Inc., the plaintiff was injured at a New York construction site when the makeshift scaffold that he was working on collapsed. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |