cause of his own injury. The Court's conclusion is that the failure to secure a ladder and ensure that it remains steady while being used is a prima facie violation of 240(1), citing cases such as Kijak and Wise.
So what's the problem? Apparently, it's Justice Tom's concurring opinion, in which he finds the Court's decision in another electrical shock/fall-from-a-ladder case, DelRosario (104 A.D.3d 515), split the ADs statewide, deviating from the Court of Appeals as well. According to Justice Tom, there's a question of fact in this case which prevents SJ, but DelRosario prevents him from reaching it, i.e., does a worker standing on a perfectly good ladder who falls due to an electrical shock satisfy 240(1)? The majority opinion, he contends, holds defendants liable "absent any proof that the safety device provided was a proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries." To rely solely on the fall from the ladder itself is "conclusory." Prior to Vukovich and DelRosario, says Justice Tom, all four departments held that the electrical shock/fall from a ladder case merely presented a question of fact, unless the ladder was defective. Why? Because the Court of Appeals in Blake said so. Though the majority is "hesitant" to admit the fact, AD1 is now a rogue department in this sub-category.
Is it true? Can any device described in 240(1), as Justice Tom asks, "protect against a force capable of knocking a worker from even the best ladder or scaffold"? Is this the end of Rico? Submitted for your approval this corollary: When it comes to Labor Law 240(1), there is no such thing as "enough".