You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law

Construction Manager Did Not Have the Contractual Authority to Control the Manner In Which Work Was Done and In Fact Did Not Control the Manner In Which Work Was Done—Labor Law 240 (1) and 200 Causes of Action Properly Dismissed

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly dismissed Labor Law 240 (1) and 200 causes of action against the construction manager because the construction manager (Sano-Rubin) did not possess the contractual authority to control, and in fact did not control, the manner in which the work was done.  The court explained the analytical criteria:

At the time of plaintiff’s injury, Sano-Rubin was serving as the construction manager for various construction projects occurring throughout the school district pursuant to a contract it had entered into with the school district. Plaintiff initially contends that there are factual issues as to whether Sano-Rubin’s role renders it a statutory defendant under Labor Law § 240 (1), which “imposes liability only on contractors, owners or their agents” … . Under this provision, a party that is operating as a construction manager is not deemed a statutory agent unless that party has “the authority to direct, supervise or control the work which brought about the injury” … . “The key criterion in ascertaining Labor Law § 240 (1) liability is not whether the party charged with the violation actually exercised control over the work, but rather whether [that party] had the right to do so” … . Similarly, under Labor Law § 200, which codifies the common-law duty of care as between owners, general contractors and their agents, the imposition of liability requires a showing that the defendant possessed the authority to direct or control the activity resulting in injury … .

Sano-Rubin’s contract with the school district provided that Sano-Rubin “shall not have control over or charge of and shall not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the [w]ork of each of the [c]ontractors” and further, that if Sano-Rubin “observes any safety program or action at the site which it believes is improper or in violation of applicable law or rules, it shall immediately advise the [o]wner.” This contract was submitted upon the cross motion, together with proof of the implementation of these contractual limitations on Sano-Rubin’s authority … , These submissions were sufficient to establish its prima facie right to judgment as a matter of law… . Larkin v Sano-Rubin Constr Co Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 00672, 3rd Dept 1-29-15

 

“General Supervisory Authority” Over Work Not Sufficient to Impose Liability Under the Labor Law

In affirming summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the Second Department described the nature of work-supervision necessary to hold a defendant liable under Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6), 200 and common-law negligence theories.  “General supervisory authority” is not enough to impose liability:

“Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) apply to owners, contractors, and their agents” … . “A party is deemed to be an agent of an owner or general contractor under the Labor Law when it has supervisory control and authority over the work being done where a plaintiff is injured” … . “Similarly, where, as here, a claim against a defendant arises out of alleged defects or dangers in the methods or materials of the work, recovery cannot be had under Labor Law § 200 or pursuant to the principles of common-law negligence unless it is shown that the party to be charged under that theory of liability had the authority to supervise or control the performance of the work” … . * * *

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) by establishing that they were not owners, contractors, or statutory agents under those provisions … . The defendants also established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence through the submission of evidence which demonstrated that they did not have the authority to supervise or control the manner in which the injured plaintiff performed his work … .

To the extent that the defendants had general supervisory authority over the work, this was insufficient in itself to impose liability under the Labor Law … . Fucci v Plotke, 2015 NY Slip Op 00726, 2nd Dept 1-28-15

 

Question of Fact Whether Failure to Wear a Harness Precluded Recovery in a Labor Law 240 (1) Action

The Second Department determined defendant had raised a question of fact whether plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident (which would preclude recovery in a Labor Law 240 (1) action).  Plaintiff was injured when plywood flooring collapsed. However the defendant presented evidence plaintiff was aware he was required to wear a harness which would have prevented him from falling to the floor below:

” Labor Law § 240(1) imposes upon owners and general contractors, and their agents, a nondelegable duty to provide safety devices necessary to protect workers from risks inherent in elevated work sites'” … . To prevail on a cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), the plaintiff must establish a violation of the statute and that the violation was a proximate cause of his injuries … . Although contributory negligence on the part of the worker is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim …, where a plaintiff’s actions are the sole proximate cause of his injuries, liability under Labor Law § 240(1) does not attach … .

Here, although the plaintiff met his prima facie burden of establishing a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) … the defendants produced evidence that a safety harness and line were available to the plaintiff, that he was aware that he was required to anchor the line on the floor where he was working, and that the anchors, harness, and line would have prevented him from falling to the 14th floor, but that the plaintiff had consciously decided not to anchor his line on the 15th floor as instructed. The defendant’s submissions were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of his accident … . Bascombe v West 44th St Hotel LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 00712, 2nd Dept 1-28-15

 

Safety Regulation Asserted to Be the Basis of the Labor Law 241 (6) Cause of Action Did Not Apply to the Defect Which Caused the Injury

The Third Department determined plaintiff’s injury from his use of a utility knife did not entitle him to recovery pursuant to Labor Law 241 (6).  The safety regulation alleged to have been violated prohibited a contractor from supplying tools with split or loose handles.  The problem with the utility knife was a loose locking mechanism.  The court refused to stretch the meaning of “loose or split handles” to include a loose locking mechanism:

Plaintiffs allege in their bill of particulars that defendant violated 12 NYCRR 23-1.10 (a), which states, in pertinent part, that unpowered hand tools with “[s]plit or loose tool handles shall not be used.” Notably, this regulatory provision does not merely impose a general duty to keep unpowered hand tools in a “safe,” “proper” or “adequate” condition …, nor does it proscribe the usage of hand tools with “unsafe” or “defective” handles, but, rather, specifically prohibits the use of hand tools with “[s]plit or loose . . . handles.”

Having determined that plaintiffs have asserted a violation of a regulatory provision that “‘sets forth a specific standard of conduct'” for general contractors and owners …, thereby providing a predicate basis for a claim under Labor Law § 241 (6), we are left to decide whether the regulation applies to the facts presented in this case [FN2]. Plaintiff explained during his examination before trial that, while he was cutting a piece of plastic with a utility knife, the locking mechanism that secures the retractable blade was loose, causing the blade to break in half and cut plaintiff’s wrist. Whether the dysfunctional locking mechanism can fairly be considered to be a “[s]plit or loose tool handle[]” is a question of law to be decided by the courts … . A fair reading of the regulation upon which plaintiffs rely, however, does not compel us to conclude that the looseness of the locking mechanism — an internal component of the knife and not a visible or functional part of the handle itself — was what the Commissioner of Labor had contemplated in his promulgation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.10 (a) … . We are well aware that the Industrial Code “should be sensibly interpreted and applied to effectuate its purpose of protecting construction laborers against hazards in the workplace” … . However, while the regulation sets forth a strict prohibition against using tools that have loose or split handles, it makes no mention whatsoever of the locking mechanism found within a hand tool, and we are thus constrained to determine that it is inapplicable. Boots v Bette & Cring LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 00588, 3rd Dept 1-22-15

 

, ,

Defendant’s Motion for a Judgment as a Matter of Law, Made Prior to the Close of Plaintiff’s Case, Was Premature and Should Not Have Been Granted Irrespective of the Improbability of Plaintiff’s Ultimate Success

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted defendant’s motion for a judgment as a matter of law, which was made (and granted) before plaintiff had completed putting in his case.  Plaintiff fell from a ladder at a work site and alleged a violation of Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence:

Prior to the close of the plaintiff’s case, the Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint, concluding that there was no evidence of a dangerous condition at the work site. The Supreme Court thereafter entered judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff dismissing the complaint. …

The Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint. “A motion for judgment as a matter of law is to be made at the close of an opposing party’s case or at any time on the basis of admissions (see CPLR 4401), and the grant of such a motion prior to the close of the opposing party’s case generally will be reversed as premature even if the ultimate success of the opposing party in the action is improbable” … . Schultz v Hi-Tech Constr & Mgt Serv Inc, 2015 NY Slip OP 00521, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

,

Criteria for Contractual Indemnification Explained

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 241(6) cause of action properly survived summary judgment and defendant was entitled to indemnification under the relevant contract.  The court explained the contractual indemnification criteria:

“While owners and general contractors owe nondelegable duties under the Labor Law to plaintiffs who are employed at their worksites, these defendants can recover in indemnity, either contractual or common-law, from those considered responsible for the accident” … . A party’s right to contractual indemnification depends upon the specific language of the relevant contract … . A promise to indemnify should not be found unless it can be clearly implied from the language and purpose of the entire agreement and the surrounding circumstances … . In addition, “a party seeking contractual indemnification must prove itself free from negligence, because to the extent its negligence contributed to the accident, it cannot be indemnified therefor” (…see General Obligations Law § 5-322.1). Shea v Bloomberg LP, 2015 NY Slip OP 00353, 2015 NY Slip Op 00353, 2nd Dept 1-14-15

 

Collapse of Makeshift Scaffold Entitled Plaintiff to Summary Judgment in Labor Law 240(1) Action—Plaintiff’s Comparative Negligence Is Not a Defense

The Fourth Department determined summary judgment should have been granted to the plaintiff in the Labor Law 240 (1) action. Plaintiff was not provided with a scaffold or safety equipment.  Plaintiff fashioned a makeshift scaffold which collapsed.  The court noted plaintiff’s comparative negligence (in the construction of the scaffold) is not a defense under Labor Law 240 (1):

We conclude that “[t]he fact that the scaffold collapsed is sufficient to establish as a matter of law that the [scaffold] was not so placed . . . as to give proper protection to plaintiff pursuant to the statute” … . Contrary to defendant’s contention, there is no issue of fact whether the safety equipment provided to plaintiff was sufficient to afford him proper protection under Labor Law § 240 (1). The only safety device provided to plaintiff at the work site was a 14-foot-long pick [an aluminum plank]. “There were no harnesses, lanyards, safety lines, or similar safety devices available for use to prevent [plaintiff’s] fall” … . To perform the work of installing siding on the building, plaintiff therefore had to create what the court accurately referred to as a “makeshift” scaffold by placing one end of the pick in the shovel of a backhoe and the other end between two pieces of wood he or a coworker nailed into the side of the building. “[T]he onus [was not] on plaintiff to construct an adequate safety device, using assorted materials on site [that were] not themselves adequate safety devices but which may [have been] used to construct a safety device” … . Bernard v Town of Lysander, 2015 NY Slip Op 00050, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

, ,

Questions of Fact Raised Re: Whether Plaintiff’s Decedent’s Brother and Plaintiff’s Decedent Were Employees of the Defendants (Who Then May Be Liable Under the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior) or Independent Contractors

The Second Department determined a question of fact had been raised about whether the brother of plaintiff's decedent was defendants' employee or an independent contractor.  Defendants are the owners of a single family home who hired plaintiff's decedent's brother and plaintiff's decedent to cut down a tree on the property. Plaintiff's decedent was killed when he was thrown head-first into a tree during the tree-felling process. Plaintiff's decedent sued defendants under negligence, violation of Labor Law sections 200 and 240, and wrongful death theories.  Plaintiff's decedent sought to hold defendants liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior (as the employer of decedent's brother, who negligently performed his work, causing plaintiff's decedent's death). Plaintiff's decedent and his brother were hired by the defendants at the suggestion of a mason, Cano, who worked for the defendants.  Cano relayed defendants' instructions concerning the tree removal to plaintiff's decedent's brother:

“The general rule is that an employer who hires an independent contractor is not liable for the independent contractor's negligent acts” … . “The determination of whether an employer-employee relationship exists turns on whether the alleged employer exercises control over the results produced, or the means used to achieve the results. Control over the means is the more important consideration” … . Whether a party is an independent contractor or an employee is usually a factual issue for a jury … .

The defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, since the evidence they submitted in support of their motion did not demonstrate the absence of any triable issues of fact … . In support of their motion, the defendants submitted the deposition transcript of the decedent's brother, who testified that the defendant Sean Jencik, in addition to specifying which trees were to be removed, provided instructions as to how the work was to be performed so that the trees would not fall on to the roadway, which were conveyed to him in Spanish through Cano. Moreover, the decedent's brother testified that the defendants gave the money to pay him and the other workers involved with the tree removal to Cano, who then paid them. Sirignano v Jencik, 2014 NY Slip Op 08977, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

,

Summary Judgment Properly Granted in Labor Law 241 (6) Cause of Action/Although Not Demonstrated Here, the Court Noted that Comparative Negligence Is a Valid Defense to a Labor Law 241 (6) Action

The Second Department determined summary judgment was properly awarded to plaintiff in his Labor Law 241(6) cause of action. Plaintiff was impaled on an uncapped piece of vertical rebar.  (Although not the case here, the court noted that plaintiff's comparative negligence is a valid defense in a Labor Law 241 (6) action.):

Labor Law § 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty of reasonable care upon owners and contractors 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 … . The provision requires owners and contractors to comply with specific safety rules and regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of the Department of Labor … . The particular safety rule or regulation relied upon by a plaintiff must mandate compliance with concrete specifications, and not simply set forth general safety standards … . Comparative negligence is a valid defense to a Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action … .

Here, the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) was predicated on Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(2) (12 NYCRR 23-1.7[e][2]), which provides that “floors, platforms and similar areas where persons work or pass shall be kept free from accumulations of dirt and debris and from scattered tools and materials and from sharp projections insofar as may be consistent with the work being performed” (12 NYCRR 23-1.7[e][2]). Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(2) (12 NYCRR 23.17[e][2]) is sufficiently specific to support a cause of action to recover damages pursuant to Labor Law § 241(6) … . However, it has no application where the object that caused the plaintiff's injury was an integral part of the work being performed … .

Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) by showing that there was a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2) and that such violation was a proximate cause of his injuries … . In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to their allegation that the uncapped rebar was an integral part of the work that was not subject to the cited regulation …, or as to whether the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the accident … . Lopez v NYC Dept of Envtl Protection, 2014 NY Slip Op 08963, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

Failure to Wear a Safety Harness Could Not Constitute the Sole Proximate Cause of Plaintiff’s Fall (Caused by the Failure of a Scaffolding Plank)—Therefore Plaintiff Entitled to Partial Summary Judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) Claim

The Third Department noted that plaintiff’s failure to wear a safety harness did not preclude recovery for a fall caused by the failure of a scaffolding plank. Under the facts, plaintiff’s failure to wear a harness could not constitute the sole proximate cause of the accident:

…[D]efendant alleged that claimant was recalcitrant in, among other things, failing to use an available safety harness. With respect to such defense, liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) does not attach when safety devices are readily available at the work site and a claimant knows that he or she is expected to use them but, for no good reason, chooses not to and such omission is the sole proximate cause of the accident … . However, where a device intended to support a worker at an elevated height fails and that failure is a proximate cause of the accident, it is “conceptually impossible for a statutory violation (which serves as a proximate cause for a [claimant’s] injury) to occupy the same ground as a [claimant’s] sole proximate cause for the injury” … .

Here, the facts are undisputed that, in an effort to assist with the construction of a platform, claimant stepped onto a plank on the existing scaffold, which was the primary safety device erected for the work, and the plank collapsed, causing claimant to fall and sustain his injuries. Accordingly, claimant’s decision not to wear an available safety harness, or employ other safety measures that might have been available, could not have been the sole proximate cause of the accident, and the Court of Claims correctly awarded claimants partial summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim … . Fabiano v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 08695, 3rd Dept 12-11-14

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy