![]() ![]() Also, we take this opportunity to remind all our customers that continuous improvement, across all facets of the business, is the hallmark of any good enterprise which would expect to stand the test of time. We encourage you to consider how this conclusion could have been reached. In addition, the court told that: “ still hasn’t done much to improve procedures”. This is your responsibility towards all people who frequent a work site. Please make sure your scaffold is safe at all times. Scaffolding Software would never like to see any business compromise on safety. Such action is a clear breach in the duty of care owed towards all workers which is unethical and immoral. The lack of bracing appears to be new detail released by the judge and is really quite shocking for us to hear about that. “The overloading of the scaffold, the lack of vertical bracing, the removal of the ties and the removal of the transoms made the likelihood of the risk occurring so high that it was almost certain”. The scaffold was also constructed without vertical bracing. The structure was holding 17,905kg but was only designed to hold 675kg, meaning it was nearly 30 times heavier than it’s maximum capacity. The court heard the scaffolding was found to have a load of nearly 18-tonnes, in excess of its maximum capacity. On 25th November 2022, NSW District Court Judge Andrew Scotting found workers were put in “significant peril” and the collapse was the consequence of a “culmination of events”, including the unauthorised removal of building ties. Crew, Inc., which held that the plaintiff, who was injured when he fell from a ladder while dusting a 6-foot-high display shelf, was not engaged in “cleaning” within the meaning of § 240(1).Scaffolding Safety Scaffolding company fined $2 million for ‘catastrophic’ collapse that killed teen apprentice It cites the Court of Appeals case of Soto v. Thus, contrary to the motion court’s finding, he was engaged in “commercial window washing,” involving “heightened elevation-related risks,” as opposed to “routine, household window washing.” (Emphasis added.) The decedent was hired by two shareholders of the residential cooperative, and had a long-standing arrangement with the building to clean its windows. ![]() Laintiff, whose decedent fell to his death while cleaning a window on the 13th floor of an apartment building, is entitled to summary judgment on her Labor Law § 240(1) claim as against 40 Fifth defendants, the owner and manager of the building. Turning back to the Domaszowec case, the court held: Thus, “cleaning” in the traditional sense – which one online dictionary defines broadly as “the activity of removing the dirt from things and places, especially in a house” – is not necessarily the type of “cleaning” contemplated by the statute. ![]() For example, a plaintiff seeking to invoke it must have been engaged in one of the listed activities as those terms have been interpreted by the courts. While the statute offers considerable protection to workers, it still imposes various conditions that must be met in order for it to apply. Labor Law § 240(1), the so-called “Scaffold Law”, provides in pertinent part:Īll contractors and owners and their agents … in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected for the performance of such labor, scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to a person so employed. 19, 2016), the First Department held that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on her Labor Law § 240(1) claim. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |