Legal Opinion
Toefer v. Long Islan Rail Road
New York Court of Appeals
Decided April 5, 2005PublishedCited by 102 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
R.S. Smith, J.
We decide in these cases that workers who fall when working on, or getting down from, the surface of a flatbed truck that is between four and five feet off the ground may not recover under Labor Law § 240 (1), because their injuries did not result from the sort of “elevation-related risk” that is essential to a cause of action under that section.
Facts and Procedural History
A. Toefer v Long Island Rail Road
Toefer is brought by the guardians of Eric Casey, who suffered a disastrous accident while working on the rehabilitation of a Long Island Rail Road bridge.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1991
- Rizzuto v. L.A. Wenger Contracting Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1998
- Narducci v. Manhasset Bay AssociatesNew York Court of Appeals · 2001
- Rodriguez v. Margaret Tietz Center for Nursing Care, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1994
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by102 opinions
- Runner v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2009
- Cappabianca v. Skanska USA Building Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Ortiz v. Varsity Holdings, LLCNew York Court of Appeals · 2011
- Marc A. Nicometi v. The Vineyards of Fredonia, LLC / Scott Pfohl v. Western New York Plumbing-Ellicott Plumbing and Remodeling Co.New York Court of Appeals · 2015
- Berg v. ALBANY LADDER COMPANY, INC.New York Court of Appeals · 2008
97 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.