Morrison v. Christa Construction, Inc.

I respectfully dissent in part. Like the majority, I conclude that plaintiff was not provided “proper protection” to accomplish his task as required by section 240 (1) of the Labor Law. Unlike the majority, however, I agree with Supreme Court that plaintiff’s injury “did not result from a separate hazard wholly unrelated to the risk which brought about the need for the safety device in the first instance * * * [and that] [t]here is a nexus between the failure of the scaffold and bucket, which exposed Plaintiff Morrison to the effects of gravity” (emphasis in original). Thus, I conclude that…