Taking Unnecessary Work-Related Risk Leaves Plaintiff Holding The Bag

In Vega v. Suffolk Bancorp., an employee of an armored car company sued the bank where he allegedly sustained injury when lifting a bag of coins as part of his employment.  His theory was that bank employees overfilled the bag of coins and therefore created a dangerous condition, resulting in his injury.

The defendant bank argued that the plaintiff was injured confronting a risk inherent in his employment as a driver for an armored car service and that his lifting the bag with one hand and not seeking the assistance of his co-worker was the cause of his injury.  The bank established that the weight of the bag was not above a contractually agreed upon weight.

The plaintiff’s case was dismissed after the court concluded that the plaintiff could not pass blame on to others when he performed his job so incautiously as to injure himself.  The court cited previously brought by sanitation workers against homeowners for injuries sustained while lifting garbage into trucks.  One factor considered by the court was whether the plaintiff had the time or other resources to enable himself to perform the task safely.

The known risks to an armored car service employee are more likely security related but the court took an expansive view. Due to the extreme effect (dismissal of the case) of this “inherent risk” doctrine on plaintiffs, its use in personal injury cases is typically reserved to those instances where the underlying employment tasks involve consistently high levels of physical exertion.

Thanks to Jim Rogers for his contribution to this post.  If you have any questions, please email Paul at .