midpage

Smith v. Hooker Chemical & Plastic Corp.Smith v. Hooker Chemical & Plastic Corp.

New York Court of Appeals
Feb 17, 1988
Versions:70 N.Y.2d 994
521 N.E.2d 431
526 N.Y.S.2d 425
1988 N.Y. LEXIS 165

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 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.]).

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.

Case Details

Case Name: Smith v. Hooker Chemical & Plastic Corp.
Court Name: New York Court of Appeals
Date Published: Feb 17, 1988
Citations: 70 N.Y.2d 994; 521 N.E.2d 431; 526 N.Y.S.2d 425; 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 165
Court Abbreviation: N.Y.
Log In