You are here: / / HERE SLIPPERY PLASTIC SHEETING WAS USED TO PROTECT AN ESCALATOR DURING...

HERE SLIPPERY PLASTIC SHEETING WAS USED TO PROTECT AN ESCALATOR DURING A PAINTING PROJECT; PLAINTIFF, A PAINTER, SLIPPED AND FELL WHEN HE STEPPED ONTO THE PLASTIC; THE PLASTIC SHOULD BE VIEWED AS A “FOREIGN SUBSTANCE,” LIKE ICE OR GREASE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE; IN ADDITION, THE PLASTIC SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED AS “INTEGRAL TO THE JOB” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE BECAUSE THERE WERE SAFER ALTERNATIVES (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, with a three-judge concurring opinion by Judge Garcia, determined the plastic sheeting placed on an escalator during painting was a “foreign substance” within the meaning the Industrial Code and the sheeting was not “integral to the work” within the meaning of the Industrial Code. Plaintiff was therefore entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action. Plaintiff was required to stand on the plastic while painting. He slipped and fell as he stepped onto the sheeting. There was testimony that drop cloths or wood panels would be safer alternative coverings:

As to whether the covering’s properties are the type encompassed within the affirmative mandate of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d), because that section specifically lists ice, snow, water and grease, the catchall reference to “other foreign substance” includes those substances that share a quality common to the enumerated items. The listed items are, by their nature, types of material that are slippery when in contact with an area where someone walks, seeks passage, or stands, and, when the substance is present, would make it difficult if not impossible to use the work area safely, necessitating one of the affirmative mitigating measures set forth in section 23-1.7 (d) as a means to provide safe footing. The plastic covering used here similarly made [plaintiff’s] work area slippery upon contact, with the result that [plaintiff] could not traverse the plastic-covered escalator without risking a fall. * * *

… [T]he use of some cover was integral to [plaintiff’s] assignment to paint around the escalator. But that does not mean that any cover used—even one that was inherently slippery—was necessarily “integral,” particularly where a safer alternative would have accomplished the same goal. The plastic covering that was placed on the escalator was not integral to the paint job because it made [plaintiff’s] work area slippery, creating one of the hazards that the cover was intended to avoid. … Defendant was in a position to avoid this danger because … there were alternative coverings—drop cloths and wood panels—that were familiar, previously-used options that would have achieved the goal of protecting the worker from injuries caused by a slipping hazard and also protected the escalator from possible damage. Bazdaric v Almah Partners LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 00847, CtApp 2-20-24

Practice Point: A prohibited “foreign substance” within the meaning of the Industrial Code can include slippery plastic sheeting (here used as a drop cloth during a painting project). Therefore requiring workers to stand or walk on slippery plastic sheeting can be a violation of the Industrial Code, triggering Labor Law 241(6) liability.

Practice Point: Because there were safer alternatives, the slippery plastic covering was not “integral to the job” within the meaning of the Industrial Code.

 

You might also like
ONCE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED, SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR STATUTORY INTEREST.
Post-Judgment Restraining Order Served On a New York Branch of a Foreign Bank, Pursuant to the Separate Entity Rule, Cannot Extend to Assets Held in Branches of the Bank Which Are Outside of New York
PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER RESPONDENT HAS BEEN PREJUDICED BY PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM CLARIFIED.
No Constitutional Right to a Sua Sponte Inquiry Into Defendant’s Mental Health Before Allowing Defendant to Proceed Pro Se
DEFENSE COUNSEL NOT INEFFECTIVE; EVIDENCE OF CHILD’S MULTIPLE DISCLOSURES OF SEX ABUSE WAS NOT BOLSTERING; DEFENSE COUNSEL ARTICULATED LEGITIMATE REASONS FOR NOT CALLING A MEDICAL EXPERT.
LEAVE TO APPEAL DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF FOR TWO CHIMPANZEES DENIED, THOUGHTFUL CONCURRING OPINION QUESTIONS THE ANALYSIS USED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND SUGGESTS RECOGNIZING THE CHIMPANZEES’ RIGHT TO LIBERTY (CT APP).
TEACHER WITH TENURE WHO RESIGNED AND WAS THEN REHIRED WAS NOT REHIRED WITH TENURE; THE TEACHER FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE REGULATION REQUIRING A WRITTEN WITHDRAWAL OF THE RESIGNATION SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CHANCELLOR.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF FIREFIGHTER’S GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (CT APP).