You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law

THE FACT THAT A (NON-DEFECTIVE) A-FRAME LADDER FELL OVER WHILE PLAINTIFF HELD ON TO IT AFTER PLAINTIFF WAS JOLTED WITH ELECTRICITY JUSTIFIED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION.

The First Department, over an extensive concurring memorandum, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff was standing on an A-frame ladder when he was jolted by contact with an electric wire and the ladder fell over as plaintiff held on to it. There was no evidence the ladder was defective. The majority held the fact the ladder was not secured to something, and therefore fell over while plaintiff was hanging on to it, demonstrated the failure to provide plaintiff with an adequate safety device. The concurring memorandum argued plaintiff’s fall from a non-defective ladder was not enough to justify summary judgment, but rather the fall from the ladder after contact with electricity raised a question of fact about the adequacy of the safety devices provided. The majority wrote:

 

Here, plaintiff was injured when he was jolted by the electrical charge and although he hung onto the ladder, because it was not secured to something stable, it and he fell to the ground … . The lack of a secure ladder is a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), and is a proximate cause of the accident … . Nazario v 222 Broadway, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 00251, 1st Dept 1-14-16

 

LABOR LAW (SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SUPPORTED BY NON-DEFECTIVE A-FRAME LADDER WHICH FELL OVER WITH PLAINTIFF HOLDING ON TO IT AFTER PLAINTIFF WAS JOLTED WITH ELECTRICITY)

LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM EYE INJURY ASSOCIATED WITH USE OF A NAIL GUN PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

Plaintiff was injured when using a nail gun. A nail ricocheted and struck his eye. The Fourth Department determined defendant was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action because eye protection was required by the Industrial Code, and plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment because there were questions of fact whether eye protection was available to the plaintiff. The court noted that the risk of eye injury from use of a nail gun is more apparent than any such risk associated with manual hammering:

We reject defendant’s contention that it was entitled to summary judgment pursuant to this Court’s holding in Herman v Lancaster Homes (145 AD2d 926, 926, lv denied 74 NY2d 601). Unlike the circumstances in Herman, plaintiff herein was not manually hammering nails but, rather, was operating a pneumatic nail gun when a nail ricocheted and penetrated his right eye. In our view, “the dangers a nail gun present[s] to the eyes are more apparent tha[n] the dangers of manual hammering” … and the plaintiff’s use of the nail gun clearly falls within the regulatory definition of engaging “in any other operation which may endanger the eyes” (12 NYCRR 23-1.8 [a]). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, based upon the record before us, we conclude that plaintiff established as a matter of law that the regulation applies, and that defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact on that point … .

We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion inasmuch as defendant raised triable issues of fact whether it had violated 12 NYCRR 23-1.8 (a) and whether plaintiff was comparatively negligent … . Specifically, there is a triable issue of fact whether defendant provided eye protection, or made such available, to plaintiff on the day of the accident and, if so, whether plaintiff was comparatively negligent in refusing to use the eye protection. Summary judgment to plaintiff is therefore inappropriate … . We note, in any event, that “[e]ven assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff[] established that defendant violated [12 NYCRR 23-1.8 (a)], any such violation does not establish negligence as a matter of law but is merely some evidence to be considered on the question of a defendant’s negligence’ ” … . Quiros v Five Star Improvements, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 09713, 4th Dept 12-31-15

LABOR LAW (241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM USE OF NAIL GUN)/NAIL GUN (LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON EYE INJURY)

INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING THAT SAFETY DEVICES BE KEPT SOUND AND OPERABLE CONSTITUTED A CONCRETE PREDICATE FOR A LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH ALLEGED INJURY DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF A “PROTECTOR” ON A GRINDER.

The Second Department determined a provision in the Industrial Code, 12 NYCRR 23-9.2(a), was sufficiently concrete to serve as a predicate for a Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action. The plaintiff was using a grinder cut sheet metal when a piece of sheet metal and a piece of the grinder “shot out” and injured him. Plaintiff alleged a “protector” had been removed from the grinder:

Labor Law § 241(6) imposes on owners and contractors a nondelegable duty to “provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to persons employed in, or lawfully frequenting, all areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed” … . As a predicate to a section 241(6) cause of action, a plaintiff must allege a violation of a concrete specification promulgated by the Commissioner of the Department of Labor in the Industrial Code … . * * *

…[P]laintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) claim is predicated on an alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.5(c)(3), which provides that “[a]ll safety devices, safeguards and equipment in use shall be kept sound and operable, and shall be immediately repaired or restored or immediately removed from the job site if damaged.” Sections 23-9.2(a) and 23-1.5(c)(3) each set forth an action to be taken (“corrected by necessary repairs or replacement”; “repaired or restored . . . or removed”) and set forth the trigger or time frame for taking such action (“upon discovery”; “immediately . . . if damaged”). Therefore … we hold that 12 NYCRR 23-1.5(c)(3) is sufficiently concrete and specific to support the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action … . Perez v 286 Scholes St. Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 09664, 2nd Dept 12-30-15

LABOR LAW (INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING SAFETY DEVICES BE KEPT SOUND AND OPERABLE WAS A CONCRETE PREDICATE FOR A LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION)/INDUSTRIAL CODE (PROVISION REQUIRING SAFETY DEVICES BE KEPT SOUND AND OPERABLE WAS A CONCRETE PREDICATE FOR A LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION)

WORKER STRUCK BY DEBRIS WHICH FELL THROUGH A GAP IN PROTECTIVE NETTING ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Workers were using jackhammers to chip away concrete on an elevated structure. Netting had been installed to catch falling pieces of concrete. Plaintiff was struck and severely injured by a four-foot piece of concrete which fell through a gap in the netting. The netting was deemed to be an inadequate safety device:

The plaintiffs’ submissions demonstrated that the injured plaintiff suffered harm that “flow[ed] directly from the application of the force of gravity” to the piece of concrete that struck him … , and that given the nature and purpose of the work that was being performed at the time of his injury, the falling debris presented a significant risk of injury such that the … defendants were obligated under Labor Law § 240(1) to use appropriate safety devices to safeguard the injured plaintiff from the harm it posed … . The plaintiffs’ submissions also demonstrated that the injured plaintiff’s injury was “the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against [the] risk” of harm posed by the falling debris … . Indeed, the plaintiffs established that the vertical netting that was installed around the controlled access zone to protect workers from the falling debris had pulled loose from the plywood barricade, creating an opening through which the concrete that struck the injured plaintiff traveled. Under these circumstances, the vertical netting constituted a safety device within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) … , and the plaintiffs demonstrated that it was not “so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection” (Labor Law § 240[1]). Sarata v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 09667, 2nd Dept 12-30-15

LABOR LAW (WORKER STRUCK BY FALLING DEBRIS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION)

,

PLAINTIFF STRUCK WHEN TWO WORKERS LOST CONTROL OF A HEAVY BEAM THEY WERE LOWERING TO THE GROUND ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION; EXPERT OPINION THAT NO SAFETY DEVICES WERE NECESSARY INSUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION.

The First Department affirmed Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff in a Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff was injured when a heavy beam being lowered by two other workers struck him in the chest and leg when the workers lost control of it. The court noted an expert opinion that no safety devices were needed was insufficient to establish the absence of a Labor Law 240 (1) violation:

The court properly found a “causal connection between the object’s inadequately regulated descent and plaintiff’s injury” … . By submitting an expert affidavit, plaintiff met his initial burden of showing that the beam “required securing for the purposes of the undertaking” … , and that statutorily enumerated safety devices could have prevented the accident … . It is undisputed that no enumerated safety devices were provided, and the testimony and expert opinion that such devices were neither necessary nor customary is insufficient to establish the absence of a Labor Law § 240(1) violation ”’ . The “height differential cannot be described as de minimis given the amount of force [the beam was] able to generate over [its] descent” … . Plaintiff was not the sole proximate cause of his injuries, which were caused at least in part by the lack of safety devices to check the beam’s descent as well as the manner in which the other two workers lowered the beam; comparative negligence is no defense to the Labor Law § 240(1) claim … . Bonaerge v Leighton House Condominium, 2015 NY Slip Op 09632, 1st Dept 12-29-15

LABOR LAW (PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY BEAM LOWERED BY TWO WORKERS)/EVIDENCE (EXPERT OPINION NO SAFEY EQUIPMENT NECESSARY DID NOT DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN A LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION)/EXPERT OPINION (OPINION THAT NO SAFETY EQUIPMENT WAS NECESSARY WAS INSUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION)

INJURY WHILE DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE DID NOT GIVE RISE TO LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION.

The Second Department determined plaintiff was doing routine maintenance (checking light fixtures) when he was injured by a loose electric cable and his Labor Law causes of action were properly dismissed:

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) by offering proof that the plaintiff was involved in routine maintenance rather than repair and, therefore, the plaintiff’s activity did not fall within the protection of that provision of the Labor Law … . …

The defendants also demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6). The plaintiff was not involved in the activity of construction, excavation, or demolition, and the statute does not protect workers involved in maintenance or replacement of parts … . …

The defendants also demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence. The defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that they neither created nor had notice of the loose cable that allegedly caused the plaintiff’s electric shock … . Guevera v Simon Prop. Group, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 09254, 2nd Dept 12-16-15

MPNTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES:

LABOR LAW (INJURY WHILE DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE NOT COVERED)/ROUTINE MAINTENANCE (INJURY NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW)

Injury Caused by Lifting a Heavy Beam Not Covered by Labor Law 240(1), Despite the Fact the Beam Was Resting on an Elevated Scaffold

The Second Department determined that plaintiff’s injury was not related to the type of hazard covered by Labor Law 240(1). Plaintiff injured his back when he lifted a beam which was resting on an elevated scaffold. The court explained:

“[T]he extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240(1) extend only to a narrow class of special hazards, and do not encompass any and all perils that may be connected in some tangential way with the effects of gravity'” … . Rather, the statute was designed to prevent accidents in which a protective device, ” proved inadequate to shield the injured worker from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person'” … .

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of [the defendant’s] motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). *  *  * … [T]he plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether his injury arose from an elevation-related risk contemplated by the statute, rather than from the usual and ordinary dangers of the construction site … . The fact that the plaintiff was injured while lifting a heavy object does not give rise to liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) … . Cardenas v BBM Constr. Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 08142, 2nd Dept 11-12-15

 

Question of Fact Whether Plaintiff’s Actions Were Sole Proximate Cause of His Injury

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined that was a question of fact whether plaintiff’s actions constituted the sole proximate cause of his injury in a Labor Law 240(1) action. Plaintiff stood on concrete blocks to work on a billboard, fell and was injured. Plaintiff had access to a cherry picker, ladders and safety harnesses but did not use them. Although plaintiff argued none of the safety devices were usable, the defendant raised a question of fact whether the safety devices could have been used:

Here, the record includes conflicting evidence regarding whether plaintiff was provided with adequate safety devices but failed to use them, which raises a triable issue of fact whether his conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . Unlike cases where a plaintiff was injured when he used his discretion to choose one of several safety devices provided and that device proved inadequate, in this case plaintiff was supplied with four safety devices and chose not to use any of them, electing instead to go straight to the concrete blocks, whose intended purpose was to act as a counterweight, not as a platform. * * *

… [A]n issue exists as to whether safe alternative means of painting the billboard were available to plaintiff and whether his failure to use those means was the sole proximate cause of his accident… . Quinones v Olmstead Props., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 07571, 1st Dept 10-15-15

 

,

Criteria for Labor Law 200 and Common Law Negligence Causes of Action Explained

The Second Department affirmed the grant of summary judgment to defendants on the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action. Plaintiff was working on a roof when a co-worker’s water jug rolled down the roof, struck him and caused him to fall to the roof. The complaint alleged the injury arose from the manner the work was performed and from a dangerous condition.  The court noted that, because the complaint alleged both theories of liability, the summary judgment motion must address both. The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

“Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty of landowners and general contractors to provide workers with a reasonably safe place to work” … . “To be held liable under Labor Law § 200 for injuries arising from the manner in which work is performed at a work site, an owner or manager of real property must have authority to exercise supervision and control over the work at the site” … . However, “the right to generally supervise the work, stop the contractor’s work if a safety violation is noted, or to ensure compliance with safety regulations and contract specifications is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200 or for common-law negligence” … . “Where a plaintiff’s injuries stem not from the manner in which the work was being performed, but, rather, from a dangerous condition on the premises, a [defendant] may be liable under Labor Law § 200 if it either created the dangerous condition that caused the accident or had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition'” … . Where an accident is alleged to involve both a dangerous condition on the premises and the “means and methods” of the work, a defendant moving for summary judgment with respect to causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 is obligated to address the proof applicable to both liability standards … . * * *

The defendants established, prima facie, both that they did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition which caused the injured plaintiff’s accident, and that they did not have the authority to supervise or control the means and methods of the injured plaintiff’s work … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Banscher v Actus Lend Lease, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 07461, 2nd Dept 10-14-15

 

Question of Fact Whether Plaintiff’s Conduct, Placing Ladder on Ice, Was Sole Proximate Cause of Injury

The Fourth Department determined there was a question of fact whether the plaintiff’s conduct constituted the sole proximate cause of his injury (re: the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action).  Plaintiff placed his ladder on ice and was injured when the ladder slipped on the ice. The court explained the analytical criteria:

Liability under section 240 (1) “is contingent on a statutory violation and proximate cause” … . If both elements are established, “contributory negligence cannot defeat the plaintiff’s claim” … . There can be no liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), however, “when there is no violation and the worker’s actions . . . are the sole proximate cause’ of the accident” … . It is therefore “conceptually impossible for a statutory violation (which serves as a proximate cause for a plaintiff’s injury) to occupy the same ground as a plaintiff’s sole proximate cause for the injury. Thus, if a statutory violation is a proximate cause of an injury, the plaintiff cannot be solely to blame for it. Conversely, if the plaintiff is solely to blame for the injury, it necessarily means that there has been no statutory violation” … .

While we agree with plaintiffs that evidence that a ladder is “structurally sound and not defective is not relevant on the issue of whether it was properly placed” …, we conclude that there are triable issues of fact whether plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . * * *

In this case, we conclude that plaintiffs failed to meet their initial burden of establishing entitlement to partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action inasmuch as they submitted evidence raising a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff’s conduct in “refusing to use available, safe and appropriate equipment” was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . Specifically, plaintiffs submitted deposition testimony from defendant’s customer, who purportedly owned the building on which plaintiff was working. The owner testified that, on the day of the accident, he advised plaintiff that the ladder was not placed in a safe position. The owner offered to retrieve safety equipment from his own truck that would help to remove ice from underneath the ladder and thereby stabilize the ladder. Plaintiff, however, rejected that offer. The owner also attempted to hold the ladder for plaintiff, but plaintiff again rejected the owner’s assistance. Fazekas v Time Warner Cable, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 07403, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy