Search for: "HEIGHTS ELEVATOR CORP." Results 1 - 20 of 36
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Apr 2020, 3:00 am by Robert Kreisman
The Illinois First District Appellate Court held that the open-and-obvious doctrine was not available to the defendants, including REIT Management & Research LLC, Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corp., and the building manager, CW 600 W. [read post]
29 Jan 2013, 3:22 pm
Section 240(1) is applicable to work performed at heights or where the work itself involves risks related to differentials in elevation. [read post]
5 Dec 2006, 6:20 pm
In holding that sec. 240(1) applied, the Court reasoned that the plaintiff was working at a elevated height because there was a 12-foot distance between where he was required to work and the floor below. [read post]
23 Oct 2007, 4:45 am
He also testified that the I-beams were elevated approximately three feet above his head when they came loose and fell. [read post]
2 Apr 2015, 2:50 pm by ADeStefano
 As such, the Court concluded that “because plaintiff’s work required the attachment, at an elevated height, of custom-made wooden extensions that changed the dimensions of the billboard frame, plaintiff was engaged in alteration of the structure within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1)” (p. 2, 6-7). [read post]
3 Jul 2007, 11:56 am
Owners Corp., 87 NY2d 938 [1996], the Court of Appeals held that routine household window washing did not fall within the ambit of Labor Law § 240(1). [read post]
22 Jun 2011, 5:53 am
The Souris River, currently at an elevation of 1,555 feet above sea level, is expected to rise eight feet higher, to 1,563 feet, by this weekend. [read post]
6 Mar 2010, 8:55 am by GGCSMB&R
Corp., 11 NY3d 757, 758, 896 N.E.2d 75, 866 N.Y.S.2d 592 wherein The Court held; "As our holding in Outar v City of New York indicates, "falling object" liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) is not limited to cases in which the falling object is in the process of being hoisted or secured... [read post]
26 Apr 2009, 6:17 am by Scott J. Kreppein, Esq.
Federal Express Corp., 4 N.Y.3d 805 (2005)(Plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his own injuries where he chose to use an upside-down bucket rather than an available ladder). [read post]
14 Jul 2016, 8:00 am by Robert Kreisman
A lumbar puncture was done the next day, which revealed milky spinal fluid, elevated protein, decreased glucose, extremely elevated cell counts and a white blood cell count left shift, but no bacterial growth upon culturing. [read post]