Reference no: EM131030793
Case Breakdown Assignment
The involved case is petition motion made by the appellant to resolve and reevaluate a previous decision made by a New York City court to settle a labor dispute relating to workplace injury, damage compensation, and the statute of the law pertaining to such circumstances.
The plaintiff in the first case is Victor J. Runner with the defendant in the party of the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. In the subsequent petition to reevaluate the decision made in favor of the plaintiff, Runner stands as the respondent with the other as the appellants.
The case citation: Victor J. Runner, Respondent, v New York Stock Exchange, Inc., et al., Appellants. No. 197, Court of Appeals of New York. 2009, 13 N.Y.3d 599; 922 N.E.2d 865; 895 N.Y.S.2d 279; 2009 N.Y. LEXIS 4484; 2009 NY Slip Op 9310. Citing case initial case Runner v. N.Y. Stock Exch., Inc., 568 F3d 383, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 12436 (2d Cir. N.Y., 2009).
The cited petition case is mainly an issue of the statute and applicability of the labor law on a particular issue particularly when there is incongruences in the nature of the issue. The appellant is arguing that the nature of the circumstance of the injury is de minimis in relation to the statute of the labor law raising two certified questions as recasted from the prior case namely first: the sustained injury of the plaintiff/respondent is an "elevation related injury" and directly caused by the effects of gravity, and second: if injury sustained from circumstances outside the specified statutes of the New York's Labor Law warrants liability under the section 240 of the aforementioned law.
The certified questions raised as arguments in the involved case resulted from the critical circumstances of the incident causing the injury of the plaintiff. During the work period and inside workplace circumstance, the plaintiff, Runner, sustained injuries in his hand and wrists, both serious and permanent, due to the event caused from the necessity of moving am 800-pound reel of wire down a set of stairs. As an immediate measure for the task, the plaintiff worker and several co-workers jerry-rigged a mechanism to hold and support the reel as they lower it through a set of stair.
To control its descent through the flight of stairs, they were instructed by a superior officer to attach a 10-foot length of rope to the reel with the other end wrapped around a metal bar placed horizontally across a door jamb with the loose end held by the plaintiff worker along with two others serving as counterweights. The other workers slowly pushed the reel through each flight of stair expecting that the metal bar in the door jamb will be able to support the descending force of the reel with the others gradually releasing the rope through the descent. However, the weight and force of the reel is too much for the resisting force of the three workers at the other hand eventually pulling the workers towards the metal bar causing the injury of the plaintiff. From such incident, the appellant raised the certified questions on whether the New York Labor Law is applicable to such circumstance.
Considerably, as part of the argument, the appellant stated that such injury is not a direct consequence of a failure on their part to provide adequate protection in the workplace environment. The circumstance of the injury is mainly a result of their failure of accurately judging the weight and force generated from the descent of the reel prompting their decision to rely on a jerry-rigged mechanism rather than securing a more reliable pulley system. From such circumstance, the defense argues that their party is not liable on legal grounds for compensatory damages and punitive burden. Secondly, the defense also argues that the circumstance of the event is not directly correlated with the precise characterized event of the labor law such as the injury is not sustained from either the fall of the worker or of an object upon the worker.
In consideration, the court finds the inquiries and arguments of the defense as not inapropos to the circumstances of the case. However, it was considered that the used makeshift device for the involved tasks is clearly placed and operated as incapable of giving proper protection to the plaintiff resulting to the sustained injuries.
Also, the worker is acting as an employed individual within the workplace setting conducting a business involved with the alteration of the building as such clearly within the scope of the protective ambit of the stature of the labor law particularly in terms of protection. Likewise, the elevation differential factor in the case was not viewed as de minimis considering the weight of the object involved and its potential force from gravitational pull. As such, the casual connection between the object and the plaintiff acting as the counterweight was considered to be unregulated, unprotected, and directly relative to the plaintiff's injury. For such matter, the court gave an affirmative answer to the first certified question in favor of the plaintiff and respondent with an unanswered response to the second question raised. Considerably, such decision is indeed justifiable and appropriate considering the factors and issues involved in the case on a practical perspective.
Case Breakdown Task
Instructions: Read your case thoroughly. Highlight, using the highlighter tool in Adobe, key aspects of the case and make sure you truly understand what has happened during the trial. In order to complete this task, you will enter you answers into this word document and upload it to Canvas, with your case as well, so that we can also look at your case. Be sure to ask questions if you have any! Have fun!
Who is the Plaintiff:
Who is the Defendant:
What is the case citation:
Identify and explain the type of case this is (Negligence/Intentional Tort/Workplace Risk/Etc). Be sure to list and describe all elements involved.
HINT: if this is a negligence case, then you will have 4 elements of risk.
Explain the circumstances of the injury/accident/situation (In your own words and be detailed):
List and describe the defenses of negligence used by the Defendant:
(Hint: There are generally more than one)
What was the outcome of the case (Use the legal terms and then explain - you might need to use Blacks Law Dictionary)? Who won the case?
Now, using what you have learned in class and read in the book, do you think this case was fair? Be sure to support your answer. Were the appropriate defenses used? A short answer of Yes or No will not do. We want to see that you understand concepts and principles of the law.