THIRD FIRST DEPARTMENT
TOPICS: Labor Law § 200, Labor Law § 241(6), 12
NYCRR 23-1.30 – sufficient illumination
EDWARDS V. STATE UNIV. CONSTR. FUND 196 A.D.3d 778 July 1, 2021
The plaintiff was injured during a renovation project at a SUNY building when he hit his head on a wooden beam supporting a scaffold within a stairwell, thereafter causing the plaintiff to fall down and sustain injuries. At the time of the incident, the plaintiff was on his way to work on the roof, which could only be accessed by the stairwell where the beam was located. The defendants’ motion to dismiss Labor Law § 200 was denied based on testimony that the defendants were in and out of the project daily; looked at the beam prior to the incident; “ducked” under the beam to pass through the stairwell; and that the defendants had “general oversight” of the project. There were also issues of fact with regard to supervisory control and notice of the low-hanging beam in order to impose liability under § 200 and common law negligence. PRACTICE NOTE: Where a plaintiff’s injury derives
from an unsafe work practice, an owner or general contractor may be found liable only upon a showing of supervisory control and actual and/ or constructive notice of the unsafe manner of performance that brought about the accident.
TOPICS: Labor Law § 240(1), Ladder
BEGEAL V. JACKSON 197 A.D.3d 1418 September 16, 2021
The plaintiff fell 12 feet to the ground while standing on an aluminum ladder in the course of erecting/constructing a ventilation stack. He placed an extension ladder in an area that had snow on the ground and raised the extension part of the ladder to reach the building where the ventilation stack was to be erected. There were no problems with the ladder; the ladder was “secure” prior to falling. Prior to falling, he shifted his position while on the ladder and it shifted on the ground. In granting the plaintiff’s partial summary judgment pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), the court held that the defendants failed to demonstrate that there was no statutory violation pursuant to labor law because the plaintiff’s testimony regarding the adequacy of the ladder (i.e. no defective condition of the ladder) is not a question of fact when the evidence in the record establishes that the ladder “slips or otherwise fails to perform its function of supporting the worker.”
Even where there is no evidence that a ladder is defective, liability can be imposed under Labor Law § 240(1) where the evidence supports that a ladder collapses, slips or otherwise fails to perform its function of supporting a worker and his/her materials, and absent evidence that the worker was the sole proximate cause for such that causes injury. PRACTICE NOTE:
TOPICS: Labor Law § 200, Labor Law § 240(1),
Structure, Routine maintenance, Repairs, Enumerated activity
EHERTS V. SHOPRITE SUPERMARKETS, INC. 199 A.D.3d 1270 November 24, 2021
The plaintiff, a plumber, fell from a ladder while turning off water connections. The defendantsupermarket complained of low water pressure. Upon inspecting the premises, the plaintiff suspected a potential water break which required turning off the store’s water connections, including the water heater that was not accessible at floor level. To access the water heater, the plaintiff placed a ladder against inventory shelves, and then stepped from the ladder onto a shelf, whereafter the shelf detached from the wall and the plaintiff fell to the ground and sustained injuries. The defendant moved for summary judgment, which was denied on the grounds that the shelf was considered a defective safety device covered by the statutory language of § 240(1), and that the plaintiff’s conduct in attempting to access the water heater was also protected. More specifically, in order to access the above-level water heater, it was found necessary for the plaintiff to place a ladder against the shelf and step over the shelf to reach the heater’s platform. Thus, the configuration of the heater constituted a structure embraced by Labor Law § 240(1). Additionally, the court held that the plaintiff’s act of performing a preventative maintenance task due to an isolated and unexpected water event, as opposed to a routine maintenance call, established that the plaintiff was engaged in repair work at the time of the incident, which was protected by Labor Law § 240(1). Whether an item is or is not a “structure” covered by Labor Law § 240(1) is fact specific and must be determined on a case-bycase basis. Also, repair work for isolated and unexpected events may implicate the protections afforded by Labor Law § 240(1), whereas acts of routine maintenance work involving replacing components in the course of normal wear and tear do not. PRACTICE NOTE:
TOPICS: Common law negligence, Covered
person, Excavation work
BUCKLEY V. 18 E. MAIN ST., LLC 199 A.D. 1283 November 24, 2021
The plaintiff, a pedestrian, was walking along the sidewalk near a gas station when she allegedly stepped on a rock, causing her to fall and injure her ankle. Earlier that day, the defendantexcavator had been performing ongoing excavation work to the gas station, which involved removing dirt and rocks from the ground to later fill with new material. The plaintiff commenced a personal injury action against the defendant for claims of common law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. The plaintiff’s labor law claims were dismissed by the lower court. The plaintiff appealed the part of the defendant’s motion that dismissed her common law negligence claims, and the court reversed, finding that circumstantial evidence established that the defendant’s earlier acts of digging up thousands of rocks in the area where the plaintiff fell was sufficient to raise an issue of triable fact related to whether its performance of excavation work launched a force or instrument of harm against the plaintiff. Labor law does not apply to a non-contractual plaintiff who is merely walking within the vicinity of a construction site and becomes injured. Rather, common law negligence applies to such a scenario, and liability can be imposed upon a subcontractor based on circumstantial evidence that its work “launches a force or instrument of harm” that caused the alleged injury. PRACTICE NOTE:
TOPICS: Labor Law § 200, Labor Law § 240, Labor
Law § 241(6), Homeowner’s exemption CAPUZZI V. FULLER 200 A.D.3d 1448 December 23, 2021
The defendant, a property owner, was granted summary judgment pursuant to Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241, based upon the finding that the defendant satisfied his burden of showing that the homeowner’s exception applied. In coming to its decision, the court considered, inter alia, the property owner’s sworn affidavit that although the defendant visited the construction site where the plaintiff was injured from time to time; observed the progression of the construction work; and paid the plaintiff, the defendant did not exert supervisory control SPRING 2022 | 15
