Court Affirms Labor Law § 240(1) Liability Despite Lack of Witnesses and Plaintiff’s Potential Comparative Negligence

The plaintiff was injured when he fell off a scaffold. However, there were no witnesses who saw him fall. Other workers heard a sound and then found the plaintiff on the ground next to the collapsed scaffold. 

The court held this was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie entitlement to liability under Labor Law 240(1). While the defendants did argue that the plaintiff may have fallen due to some type of medical event, it was not the sole proximate cause of the accident, which would absolve the defendants from liability. The court cited an older case, Samuel v. Simone, 13, Ad. 3d 112 (1st Dept 2004), which held that, even if the plaintiff was intoxicated at the time of the incident, it would only amount to comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law 240(1) claim. 

This case highlights the dangers when the plaintiff can be their own liability witness and the defendant must make every effort in this type of case to ensure they can prove that there were adequate safety devices furnished and in place. This case also reiterates the somewhat unfair result that occurs when confronting a 240(1) plaintiff who is comparatively negligent and even intoxicated at the time of his incident. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}