Workplace Risk - Case Study Example

Work Place Risks Unit Introduction VICTOR J. RUNNER, Respondent, v NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, case no 197 Victorwho is the plaintiff of the above case was directed to move an 800 pounded wire with several other workers down stairs. However, to prevent the reel from rolling freely downstairs as well as cause damage, the workers were asked to tie 10-feet of rope to the reel and wrap it around the metal bar that was placed horizontally across a jamb on the door the same level as the reel. The plaintiff then held the loose end of the rope while the other workers pushed the reel downstairs.

As the reel went down, it pulled the plaintiff and the other workers into the metal bar, and as a result injured the worker’s hand. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court, that the movement of the reel was caused by a gravity risk and the failure to provide adequate device for safety was the main cause of the injury. In addition, the reel had to be moved from a high to a low elevator and the danger that was supposed to be guarded against came about from the force of the reel. The plaintiffs’ injury was as a result of a direct consequence of the reel going downstairs as if he was positioned in the reel’s path (Victor Vs New York Exchange, Case no 197).

As a result, he suffered from an injury that was elevation related while acting as a counterweight pulley to descend an 800 pound reel down stairs. He is said to have been dragged into the make shift pulley when the reel rapidly descended downstairs. The question was whether the plaintiff injury was as a result of a direct consequence of failure to have adequate protection against such a risk that arose from physically differential elevation. 240(1), of labor law claims that a liability strict statute was designed to prevent accidents where protection devices of the above enumerated injury of the statute proved to be insufficient to shield the plaintiff from any injury that occurred from the force of gravity to the reel.

Nevertheless, since the plaintiff was injured while trying to descend following the reels path, he is entitled to recover under section 240(1), and should not be denied any legal course. The differential elevation was not seen as de minimis, because the weight of the reel and the amount of force it had was enough to generate the course of a short descent, as well as cause harm to the worker (Victor Vs New York Exchange, Case no 197).The trial courts showed that the worker was indeed injured, in addition to suffering from permanent and serious injuries on both his hands while trying to descend the reel downstairs, as well as installing defendant power system in New York Stock Exchange premises.

Therefore, the manner as which the injuries were sustained were undisputed. The loose end that the plaintiff and other workers held pulled them down because they were acting as counterweights, on support of the metal bar. The wrapping of the rope was ineffective in terms of regulating the plaintiff and the descent the reason why it drew them horizontally, injuring both his hands ( Victor Vs New York Exchange, Case no 197).The jury was instructed that the pursuant liability to the law of labor was not assigned unless the workers’ injuries had been attributed to gravity risks, and having found no such injuries and risks, returned the verdict to the defendant.

Therefore, the motion by the plaintiff was set aside and the verdict ensued. However, in granting and directing the judgment upon the labor law 240, the court found that as a matter of law, the reel movement down stairs proved a gravity risk and adequate safety devices were not used in order to manage such a risk. Therefore, failure to use a safety device was the main factor that caused the plaintiff’s injury ( Victor Vs New York Exchange, Case no 197).It is obvious that no work place risk measure were put into place while descending the reel downstairs.

No statute was placed properly in order to give the plaintiff protection as a person who is employed in the building. It is often agreed that the purpose of any strict liability is to protect the people who work in construction areas from work place risks. Therefore, the court agreed that the plaintiff’s accident was a result of such risks, since the reel had to be moved from high to low elevator and the danger could be avoided if the heavy object was sufficiently checked. Therefore, the court ruled that the plaintiff harm was a result of the direct consequence of the gravity of the reel, Victor Vs New York Exchange, Case no 197.

ReferenceVICTOR J. RUNNER, Respondent, v NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, case no 197 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK, Victor Vs New York Exchange, Case no 197