You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law

Criteria for Common Law or Implied Indemnification Explained

In affirming Supreme Court’s denial of summary judgment to the defendants in a construction-accident case, the Third Department clearly explained the criteria for common law or implied indemnification.  In a nutshell, any negligence by the party seeking indemnification for payments made to the injured party on behalf of a negligent tortfeasor will preclude recovery. Common law or implied indemnification applies only to parties who are liable vicariously without fault:

“The principle of common-law, or implied indemnification, permits one who has been compelled to pay for the wrong of another to recover from the wrongdoer the damages it paid to the injured party. Since the predicate of common-law indemnity is vicarious liability without actual fault on the part of the proposed indemnitee, it follows that a party who has itself actually participated to some degree in the wrongdoing cannot receive the benefit of the doctrine” … . Accordingly, in order “[t]o establish a claim for common-law indemnification, the party seeking indemnity must prove not only that it was not guilty of any negligence beyond the statutory liability, but must also prove that the proposed indemnitor was guilty of some negligence that contributed to the cause of the accident” … . Hackert v Emmanuel Cong. United Church of Christ, 2015 NY Slip Op 06192, 3rd Dept 7-16-15

 

Two-to-Five-Foot Fall from Edge of Roof to Scaffolding Supported Labor Law 240 (1) Cause of Action

The Third Department determined a two-to-five foot fall from the edge of a roof to scaffolding properly survived summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action:

Liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) arises when a worker’s injuries are “‘the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential'” … . Ordinarily, the adequacy of a safety device is a question of fact, unless the device “‘collapses, slips or otherwise fails to perform its function of supporting the worker'” … .

The distance that Scribner fell from the roof ledge to the scaffolding is disputed. Claimant alleged, in the bill of particulars, that the scaffolding was two feet below the ledge, while Scribner and the project supervisor asserted in their deposition testimony that the scaffolding was four to five feet below the ledge. Regardless of whether the height differential was two, four or five feet, Scribner’s fall is the type of elevation-related risk to which Labor Law § 240 (1) applies … .

The parties’ submissions also raise a question of fact as to whether the scaffolding afforded … adequate protection and, if not, whether the absence of an appropriate safety device was the proximate cause of his injuries … . Scribner v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 05993, 3rd Dept 7-9-15

 

Wall Surrounding the Edge of a Roof Is Not a Safety Device

Reversing Supreme Court, the Third Department determined plaintiff’s injury was elevation-related and therefore was covered under Labor Law 240(1).  Plaintiff was standing on a building-roof using hand signals to guide a crane when he fell from the roof. Supreme Court reasoned plaintiff could have accomplished his job while staying away from the edge of the roof and, therefore, the accident was not elevation-related within the meaning of the statute. The Third Department rejected that reasoning and noted that the parapet wall around the edge of the roof was part of the structure of the building and could not, therefore, be considered a safety device:

Supreme Court determined that his injuries did not flow from an elevation-related hazard, as plaintiff was not “required to work at an elevation” and could have stayed away from the edge of the roof by directing the crane operator via cell phone … . This determination, however, ran against the undisputed proof that plaintiff had to work somewhere on the roof in order to signal the crane operator and that hand signaling was the usual method of doing so … . His decision to employ an accepted method of signaling while performing necessary work on the roof, even if a safer method existed, constituted nothing more than “comparative fault that is not a defense under the statute”… .

… A parapet wall surrounded the edge of the roof, but “a permanent appurtenance to a building does not normally constitute the functional equivalent of a scaffold or other safety device within the meaning of the statute” … . Salzer v Benderson Dev. Co., LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06001, 3rd Dept 7-9-15

 

Subcontractor Who Is Not Vicariously Liable for the Acts or Omissions of Its Subcontractors Under Labor Law 200 May Be Vicariously Liable for those Acts or Omissions Under Labor Law 241 (6)

The First Department explained that, under Labor Law 200 (a codification of common law negligence), a subcontractor, as the statutory agent of the owner and general contractor, stands in the shoes of the owner and general contractor. Neither the owner, general contractor nor their statutory agent may be held liable under Labor Law 200 in the absence of evidence the owner, general contractor or their statutory agent actually created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Here there was no evidence the defendant subcontractor created or was aware of a dangerous condition allegedly created by its subcontractors. A subcontractor who did not create and/or has no notice of the dangerous condition, however, can be vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of its subcontractors, as a statutory agent, under Labor Law 241 (6):

 As a subcontractor and, therefore, the statutory agent of the owner and general contractor, [defendant] stands in the shoes of the owner and general contractor, neither of which may be held liable under common-law negligence or Labor Law § 200 (a codification of common-law negligence) for injuries arising from a dangerous condition in the absence of evidence that such party actually created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it … . Uncontroverted evidence establishes, as a matter of law, that [defendant]  sub-subcontracted all of its work … and furnished no workers in its own employ to perform work. Rather, [defendant’s] presence at the site was limited to one-hour visits by its president once a week or every other week. Since there is no evidence that [defendant] itself created the condition in question or had actual or constructive of it, it cannot be held liable for injuries arising from that condition under common-law negligence or Labor Law § 200, neither of which makes an owner, a general contractor or their statutory agent vicariously liable for the negligence of a downstream subcontractor … .

However, given that [defendant’s] subcontract with [the owner] delegated to it the authority to supervise all drywall work, and given plaintiff’s allegation that the presence of the pipe segment on the floor was caused by employees of [defendant’s] spackling sub-subcontractor … , [defendant] is subject to liability under Labor Law § 241(6) as a statutory agent … . DeMaria v RBNB 20 Owner, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 05599, 1st Dept 6-30-15

 

Defendant Entitled to Summary Judgment–Activity (Routine Cleaning) Not Covered by Labor Law 240 (1)—Re: Labor Law 200 and Common Law Negligence: Equipment Provided by Defendant Not Defective; Defendant Did Not Have Authority to Control Plaintiff’s Work

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly dismissed an action by plaintiff-janitor who fell from an A-frame ladder while cleaning the basketball backboard in a school gymnasium. The Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly dismissed because cleaning the backboard was routine maintenance, not covered by Labor Law 240 (1).  The Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action were properly dismissed because the defendant school demonstrated the ladder was not defective and it did not have the authority to control the manner in which plaintiff did his work:

… [T]he injured plaintiff’s work did not constitute “cleaning” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1). The defendant established that the injured plaintiff was performing routine maintenance of the basketball backboards, done regularly throughout the course of the basketball season, that did not require any specialized equipment, and was unrelated to any ongoing construction or renovation of the school. As such, it was not a covered activity under Labor Law § 240(1) … . …

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, a defendant must have authority to exercise supervision and control over the work'” … . Where a plaintiff’s injuries arise not from the manner in which the work was performed, but 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'” … . When an accident is alleged to involve defects in both the premises and the equipment used at the work site, 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 … . A defendant moving for summary judgment in such a case may prevail “only when the evidence exonerates it as a matter of law for all potential concurrent causes of the plaintiff’s accident and injury, and when no triable issue of fact is raised in opposition as to either relevant liability standard” … .

To the extent that the plaintiffs allege that the accident was caused by a defect in the ladder, which was owned and provided by the defendant, a premises condition is at issue … . However, the defendant established, prima facie, that the ladder was not in a defective condition and that, in any event, it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of any defect in the ladder … . …

To the extent that the plaintiffs allege that the accident was caused by the manner in which the work was performed, the defendant established, prima facie, that it did not have the authority to supervise or control the means and methods of the injured plaintiff’s work … . Torres v St. Francis Coll., 2015 NY Slip Op 05466, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

Defendant-Homeowner’s Providing Plaintiff With a Ladder With Allegedly Worn Rubber Feet Raised a Question of Fact About Defendant’s Liability for the Ladder’s Slipping and Plaintiff’s Fall—Cause of Accident Can Be Proven by Circumstantial Evidence

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted summary judgment to the defendant homeowner.  Plaintiff was using defendant’s ladder when the ladder slipped and plaintiff fell.  Plaintiff alleged the rubber feet on the ladder were totally destroyed. That allegation created a question of fact whether defendant provided dangerous or defective equipment to the plaintiff which caused plaintiff’s injury. In response to defendant’s argument that plaintiff could not explain the cause of the accident without resort to speculation, the court noted that the cause of an accident can be proven by circumstantial evidence (here the condition of the feet of the ladder and fact that the feet slipped):

“[W]hen a defendant property owner lends allegedly dangerous or defective equipment to a worker that causes injury during its use, the defendant moving for summary judgment must establish that it neither created the alleged danger or defect in the instrumentality nor had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous or defective condition” … . While lack of constructive notice can generally be established by evidence demonstrating when the area or condition was last inspected relative to the time of the accident …, the absence of rubber shoes on a ladder is a “visible and apparent defect,” evidence of which may be sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact on the issue of constructive notice … . Here, the defendants satisfied their prima facie burden with evidence that the ladder had been inspected prior to the accident. The defendant Billis Arniotis (hereinafter Billis) testified that, since purchasing the ladder 20 years before the accident, he had used it once per week and had inspected its rubber feet each time. Billis last inspected the ladder one or two weeks before the accident and did not observe any wear at that time. However, the plaintiff testified that he inspected the ladder after the accident and found that its rubber feet were “totally eaten up, worn,” and “destroyed.” This conflicting evidence, coupled with Billis’s testimony that the ladder had not been used between the time of the accident and the plaintiff’s inspection, raised a triable issue of fact.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, they failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of his fall without engaging in speculation. A plaintiff’s inability to testify exactly as to how an accident occurred does not require dismissal where negligence and causation can be established with circumstantial evidence … . Here, Billis’s testimony establishes that he was present at the time of the accident and that he watched the ladder slide down while the plaintiff was on it. Evidence that the ladder’s rubber feet were worn down also is sufficient to permit the inference that this defective condition caused the slippage … . Patrikis v Arniotis, 2015 NY Slip Op 05167, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

Industrial Code Provision Which Prohibits Allowing an Employee to Use an “Elevated Working Surface Which Is In a Slippery Condition” Does Not Apply to Snow Removal/The Injury—a Slip and Fall While Shoveling Snow—Was Caused by “An Integral Part of the Work”

Plaintiff was directed to remove snow from the work site and slipped and fell in the process. The Third Department affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s Labor Law 241(6) cause of action because the cited industrial code provision (12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d)) did not apply to the work plaintiff was assigned. The industrial code prohibited allowing an employee to use an “elevated working surface which is in a slippery condition.” However, where the injury is caused by “an integral part of the work” being performed (here, removal of the slippery condition) that industrial code provision does not apply:

… [P]laintiff cites 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d), which prohibits an employer from allowing an employee to use an “elevated working surface which is in a slippery condition.” However, when the injury is caused by “an integral part of the work” being performed, 12 NYCRR 23.1-7 does not apply … . In other words, liability does not attach when the injury is caused by the “‘very condition [a plaintiff] was charged with removing'” … . … Here, plaintiff was injured due to the condition that he was specifically charged with removing … , Barros v Bette & Cring, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 04910, 3rd Dept 6-11-15

 

Plaintiff Who Fell From Scaffolding Which Did Not Have Safety Rails Entitled to Summary Judgment on His Labor Law 240(1) Cause of Action

he Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action based upon his fall from scaffolding which did not have safety rails. The relevant law was succinctly explained:

Labor Law § 240(1) imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners, lessees that control the work performed, and general contractors to provide safety devices necessary to protect workers from risks inherent in elevated work sites … . “To recover on a cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), a plaintiff must demonstrate that there was a violation of the statute, and that the violation was a proximate cause of the accident” … . Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that he was injured when he fell from a scaffold which lacked safety rails on the sides and that he was not provided with a safety device to prevent him from falling … . Vasquez-Roldan v Two Little Red Hens, Ltd., 2015 NY Slip Op 04842, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

Plaintiff Entitled to Summary Judgment on Labor Law 240 (1) Cause of Action—Plaintiff Was Standing on an A-Frame Ladder When It Swayed and Tipped Over

The Second Department determined plaintiff, Casasola, was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action.  Plaintiff was standing on an unsecured A-frame ladder when it swayed and tipped over. The incident occurred when Casasola was working on property owned by the State of New York. The court noted that, to be liable, the property owner need not have exercised any control over the work.  All the plaintiff must show is the violation of a statute proximately caused his injury:

Labor Law § 240(1) provides that “[a]ll contractors and owners and their agents . . . shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected . . . scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to [construction workers employed on the premises]” … . The purpose of this statute, commonly referred to as the “scaffold law,” is to protect workers “by placing ultimate responsibility for safety practices at building construction jobs where such responsibility actually belongs, on the owner and general contractor, instead of on workers, who are scarcely in a position to protect themselves from accident” … . Casasola v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 04798, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

,

Injury While Lowering a Heavy Tank Entitled Plaintiff to Summary Judgment on His Labor Law 240 (1) Claim—Party’s Cross Motion Should Not Have Been Denied for Failure to Attach Pleadings—the Pleadings Had Been Provided to the Court by Other Parties

The First Department determined plaintiff was properly awarded summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) claim.  A rope attached to a heavy tank being lowered down some stairs by plaintiff severed one finger and a portion of another (“grave injury”). The court found that the incident was gravity-related, plaintiff was not provided with adequate safety devices, and plaintiff’s actions were not the sole proximate cause of his injury. The court noted that another party’s cross-motion for summary judgment should not have been denied on the ground the pleadings were not attached to the motion papers.  The pleadings had been provided to the court by other parties. Serowik v Leardon Boiler Works Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04773, 1st Dept 6-9-15

 

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