In King v. Perrotte , Karl King sued after he was injured repairing Leander Perrotte's roof.
Given the necessary equipment and supplies to get the job done, King and another coworker ascended to the roof via a forklift and handed off bales of shingles to one another.
According to King, the machine malfunctioned and the bucket in which King was standing tipped and caused him to fall 15 feet to the ground. While Perrotte conceded there was a malfunction, he argued King's injury was caused when the worker dropped a bale of shingles on his foot. (An event supposedly corroborated by a witness.)
King's lawsuit was based on violations of New York's labor laws, which require property owners to provide laborers with appropriate protection. While the Clinton County Supreme Court found a malfunctioning hoist violated the law, that didn't mean Perrotte was responsible for King's injuries.
After trial, when the jury sided with Perrotte, an appeal ensued.
The Appellate Division, Third Department, found the owner could only be liable for King's injuries if "questions of liability and damages [were] so interwoven that it would be illogical to conclude that a [Labor Law] violation existed but did not cause resulting injury." Since it was plausible for the jury to have accepted the landlord's story and to believe King dropped a bale of shingles on his foot, the AD3 thought the jury's determination was reasonable and upheld the outcome.
The AD3 baled out of that one, fast.
To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: King v. Perrotte