A New York appeals court on Thursday reversed a grant of partial summary judgment to an injured worker in a forklift accident, saying there were “triable issues as to whether any safety regulation had been violated.”
Joseph Marino Jr. was injured in a forklift accident while working on a construction project.
According to Mr. Marino, he had placed the forklift in neutral, set the parking brake and left the vehicle to collect materials. Then when he saw the forklift rolling backwards, he ran after it. Once he reached the forklift, Mr. Marino planted his foot on the ground and injured his knee, according to Marino v. Manning Squires Hennig Co. Inc., filed in the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Fourth Judicial Department in Rochester, New York.
Mr. Marino sued Manning Squires Hennig Co. Inc., the general contractor for the construction project, asserting a claim for violation of a labor law requiring reasonable and adequate protection and safety.
The general contractor then brought a third party action against Mr. Marino̵7;s employer, Highland Masonry and Restoration Inc. Mr. Marino moved for summary judgment, and an Erie County Superior Court judge granted the motion.
The Appellate Division’s Fourth Department said the motion should have been denied, noting that Marino submitted conflicting deposition testimony, including his own, on the question of whether the date of the accident was the first time either party knew of the allegedly defective forklift. brake.
Additionally, the court said, there was conflicting testimony as to whether the brake indicator light was activated during the incident and thus there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the parking brake was defective.
WorkCompCentral is a sister magazine to Business Insurance. More stories here.