When is a Forklift Not a Forklift?

The Supreme Court, New York County, made an important ruling last week. The decision in McCoy v. Metropolitan Transit Authority improved an injured worker's ability to seek compensation.

In McCoy, the plaintiff was injured during the transport of a 20 foot long beam via a multifunction forklift. The forklift had two modes, it could act as a traditional forklift, or it could be converted into a mobile crane, complete with boom. It was while in this crane mode that plaintiff suffered his injury.

The question for the Court was, which law governing safety precautions governed the operation of this machine, forklift regulations or crane regulations? The answer: BOTH

The Court reasoned that when dealing with multifunction machines, the applicable law changes with the function of the machine. Multifunction vehicles cannot be limited to one standard of law when they are not limited to one function. In this case, the multifunction forklift machine would be governed by forklift regulations when it was being used as a forklift. When it was being used as a mobile crane, the law governing cranes must be followed.

This ruling applies common sense to the law. When most of the safety regulations governing work machines were written, multifunction vehicles were virtually non existent. This decision allows the courts to elevate function over form. It allows a court to focus on what a machine was doing at the time of an accident, not what other functions the machine has the capability to do. It allows the court to look beyond the title of a machine to its actual use. For instance, in this case, the Court did not allow the defendant to hide behind the technicality that the machine was called and billed as a forklift. The machine was used as a crane, so it was treated as a crane.

This decision leads to a more even handed application of law based upon the day to day realities of a job site, as opposed to legal fictions. So when is a forklift a forklift? Only when its actually a forklift.