so, let me get this straight and offer a solution:
1) so if the landlord has to pay for the medical bill, then it had better be for the medical bill and nothing exhorbent beyond that. if according to the law, they have to….
2) now, since it has been a violation of the lease, then i would evict the lessee out for violation of the agreement.
3) now, sue the tenant for the cost of the medical bill since my insurance had to pay for the bill (or at least have the insurance sue the tenant).
4) so if the lift failed – this was a 1500 lb unit, how many folks were working? i only see 1 person that was hurt. where was the lift? was it craned? sounds like that the contractor did not faithfully protect the worker or was the worker working on his own, pretending to work for the company?
Joe –
Perhaps you didn’t read the earlier comment. These laws, 240/241, are from the late 1800s. These were adopted before NY’s junior senator’s parents were born, and before client # 9’s grandparents married. You’re falling into that stereotypical conservative trap of blaming anyone whom you think might be a liberal. That’s not the problem here.
The problem is having a law with absolute or strict liability that serves as the neglignece attorneys retirement fund. They are losuy laws that the other states got rid of long ago, other states that you seem to have respect for.
I have a question: if the strict liability standard controls for the injury, couldn’t the landlord still countersue the tenant for violating the contract? And the CGL insurer then subrogate against the tenant for the amount they paid out for the workers’ recovery? That could settle the claim to the point that the worker would only have the WC benefits, no other enrichment….
All the suing, countersuing, subrogating, holding harmless, etc., is why insurance companies don’t like to write contractors in NY. And the reason the state legisalture doesn’t repeal these RIDICULOUS laws is that the state legislature is made up of LAWYERS who don’t want to hurt their profession.
What I think is being misunderstood here is that under strict laibility the negligent party is liable without recourse. One can sue and counter sue until the cows come home but to no avail, I don’t think you’d find any attorney will to take the case on contigency because he will know it’s a loser. The employer contractor AND the property owner are liable in a fall or falling object injurty…period, end of discussion except for “how much”. very few of these suits actually see the light of day inside the court room, most are negotiated settlements with the insurers. I have two labor law claims cooking right now, one against a conractor I insure and the other a commercial property owner. neither injuries were horrifyingly bad, broken wrist on one, broken elbow and jaw the other and both look like settlements of not less than $500K. BTW, both workers fully recovered and back at work without restriction. Best game in town….for them.
IF THIS WAS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND THE LANDLORD HIRED A CARPET CLEANER TO CLEAN AFTER THE TENANT PASSED AWAY AND ASKED THE CLEANER TO REMOVE THE CONTENTS OF THE HOUSE AND AN ANTIQUE GUN WAS FOUND AND FELL AND WENT OFF SHOOTING THE WORKER IN THE FACE CAUSING MAJOR INJURY. THE OWNER CLAIME SHE DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT THE GUN BUT THE DEAD TENANT WAS HER MOTHER. SHOULD THIS BE STRICT LIABILITY. SHOULD SHE HAVE MADE SURE SHE INVITED WORKERS INTO A SAFE ENVIROMENT.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
so, let me get this straight and offer a solution:
1) so if the landlord has to pay for the medical bill, then it had better be for the medical bill and nothing exhorbent beyond that. if according to the law, they have to….
2) now, since it has been a violation of the lease, then i would evict the lessee out for violation of the agreement.
3) now, sue the tenant for the cost of the medical bill since my insurance had to pay for the bill (or at least have the insurance sue the tenant).
4) so if the lift failed – this was a 1500 lb unit, how many folks were working? i only see 1 person that was hurt. where was the lift? was it craned? sounds like that the contractor did not faithfully protect the worker or was the worker working on his own, pretending to work for the company?
Joe –
Perhaps you didn’t read the earlier comment. These laws, 240/241, are from the late 1800s. These were adopted before NY’s junior senator’s parents were born, and before client # 9’s grandparents married. You’re falling into that stereotypical conservative trap of blaming anyone whom you think might be a liberal. That’s not the problem here.
The problem is having a law with absolute or strict liability that serves as the neglignece attorneys retirement fund. They are losuy laws that the other states got rid of long ago, other states that you seem to have respect for.
Only in America!
I have a question: if the strict liability standard controls for the injury, couldn’t the landlord still countersue the tenant for violating the contract? And the CGL insurer then subrogate against the tenant for the amount they paid out for the workers’ recovery? That could settle the claim to the point that the worker would only have the WC benefits, no other enrichment….
that is what i was stating earlier…why not sue and countersue…seems only fair, since you violated the lease.
All the suing, countersuing, subrogating, holding harmless, etc., is why insurance companies don’t like to write contractors in NY. And the reason the state legisalture doesn’t repeal these RIDICULOUS laws is that the state legislature is made up of LAWYERS who don’t want to hurt their profession.
and who gets all the money — da lawyers!
what a life…maybe that is the profession i needed!
You don’t seem that slimey as to become an attorney!
What I think is being misunderstood here is that under strict laibility the negligent party is liable without recourse. One can sue and counter sue until the cows come home but to no avail, I don’t think you’d find any attorney will to take the case on contigency because he will know it’s a loser. The employer contractor AND the property owner are liable in a fall or falling object injurty…period, end of discussion except for “how much”. very few of these suits actually see the light of day inside the court room, most are negotiated settlements with the insurers. I have two labor law claims cooking right now, one against a conractor I insure and the other a commercial property owner. neither injuries were horrifyingly bad, broken wrist on one, broken elbow and jaw the other and both look like settlements of not less than $500K. BTW, both workers fully recovered and back at work without restriction. Best game in town….for them.
IF THIS WAS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND THE LANDLORD HIRED A CARPET CLEANER TO CLEAN AFTER THE TENANT PASSED AWAY AND ASKED THE CLEANER TO REMOVE THE CONTENTS OF THE HOUSE AND AN ANTIQUE GUN WAS FOUND AND FELL AND WENT OFF SHOOTING THE WORKER IN THE FACE CAUSING MAJOR INJURY. THE OWNER CLAIME SHE DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT THE GUN BUT THE DEAD TENANT WAS HER MOTHER. SHOULD THIS BE STRICT LIABILITY. SHOULD SHE HAVE MADE SURE SHE INVITED WORKERS INTO A SAFE ENVIROMENT.