Articles Posted in Construction Accident

In a 3-2 decision The New York Appellate Division, 1st Department affirmed the granting of summary judgment to a construction worker on his 240(1) claim. In Reavely v.Yonkers Raceway Programs, Inc., et al., decided on October 20, 2011, the worker suffered injury while assisting in the installation of a hang wall at the edge of a building foundation. The pertinent facts as to the happening of the accident were set forth by The Court;

“Approximately 10 minutes before plaintiff approached the wall to make the cut, another contractor had finished installing waterproofing on the surface of the foundation where plaintiff would be doing the work. Plaintiff knew that it ordinarily takes at least 20 minutes for the waterproofing, which is a tar-like, viscous material, to dry. However, he was directed to make the cut immediately and did not want to defy his supervisor by waiting until he could be certain that the surface was safe. Plaintiff tested the material, and it appeared dry enough to stand on, so he commenced his work. As he was completing the cut, he attempted to replant his right foot and slipped on the viscous waterproofing. According to plaintiff’s affidavit submitted in connection with the subject summary judgment motions, “When I slipped I lost my balance. My body was pulled forward and I hovered over the uncovered 10 feet trench edge without fall protection. It was 10 feet deep there because that particular section had not been backfilled. I felt that I was about to go over the edge. I reacted immediately and instinctively to teetering by trying to stand up. I also desperately tried to counter the momentum pulling me over the edge by arching back. I knew that I was holding a potentially lethal saw which I was about to go over ]with, or even worse, on. Worried about hitting my leg as well and in the process of teetering and desperately trying to prevent myself from going fully over the trench edge, my right hand came off the operating saw and it struck my right hand, thumb and forefinger before it dropped.” Thus, according to plaintiff’s uncontested version of events, he did not actually sustain his injury by falling into the trench, but rather by attempting to prevent himself from falling.”

In rejecting the defendants’ attorney’s assertion that plaintiffs’ Labor Law § 240(1) claim should be dismissed because plaintiff did not fall from a height, and no object fell upon him from above it held;

In Schick v. 200 Blydenburgh, LLC, et al., 2d Department decided October 4, 2011, the plaintiff sustained injury when he fell from a ladder on which he was standing. The Court set forth the facts as follows;

“On March 9, 2007, the date of the subject accident, Pal Supply had not yet moved into the premises. That morning, the injured plaintiff (hereinafter the plaintiff), a field technician for Verizon, was assigned to provide telephone service for Pal Supply at the warehouse. According to the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, upon arrival at the warehouse, he discovered that the installation of three telephone lines would involve connecting the terminal located at the telephone pole on the road to an existing underground wire leading to a serving terminal located inside the rear of the warehouse. The plaintiff testified that he thought he would then install the Network Interface Device (hereinafter the NID), which would house the three telephone lines, a few feet from this serving terminal. However, according to the plaintiff, a Pal Supply employee told him to run a wire from the serving terminal along the ceiling to an area above the office doorway, and to install the NID over the doorway.

The plaintiff further testified at his deposition that he installed the cross connection wire from the telephone pole terminal to the underground wire, tested the dial tone at the serving terminal, and attached the wire from the serving terminal along the wall leading from the serving terminal up to the ceiling. The plaintiff attached the wire to existing structural trusses using plastic zip ties, slicing off the tails of the ties with a diagonal cutter. As the plaintiff was attaching the wire to the trusses that were near the ceiling, which were approximately 20 feet high, he felt the ladder on which he was standing shift up and down, the bottom of the ladder slid out, and the plaintiff fell to the floor. The plaintiff alleged that the ladder slipped or shifted due to sand, dirt, or dust on the floor.”

This is from a Seminar by The New York State Bar Association on New York Construction Accident Law which was held in 2008. The Seminar was developed by Howard S. Hershenhorn who was the over -all planning chair. The seminar has been held State wide since 2007. It will once again be presented by The New York State Bar Association on December 2, 2011 in Syracuse and Long Island, and December 9, 2011 in Albany and New York City. Further details will be posted.

In THOME v. BENCHMARK MAIN TRANSIT ASSOCIATES, LLC, 4th Dept. July 8, 2011, 2011 N.Y. Slip 5884, The Court denied the plaintiff construction worker’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff was standing on a scissor lift and, when he repositioned the scissor lift to perform his work, one of its wheels entered a hole in the floor and the scissor lift tipped over, causing plaintiff to fall and sustain injury. In denying the motion the Court held;

“We agree, however, with the further contention of defendants that they raised a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries. In opposition to the motion, defendants submitted evidence that plaintiff was aware that holes had been cut into the concrete floor of the building in which he was working and that, on the morning of his accident, plaintiff had been specifically directed not to operate the scissor lift in the area where the holes had been cut. Further, defendants submitted evidence that plaintiff drove the raised lift into that area while looking at the ceiling rather than where the lift was going. Consequently, “[u]nlike those situations in which a safety device fails for no apparent reason, thereby raising the presumption that the device did not provide proper protection within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1), here there is a question of fact [concerning] whether the injured plaintiff’s fall [resulted from] his own misuse of the safety device and whether such conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries” (Bahrman v Holtsville Fire Dist., 270 AD2d 438, 439).”

In a dissent Justice Peradotto voted to affirm the lower court’s granting of summary judgment stating;

In Losito v Manlyn Dev. Group, Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 05463, Second Department, June 21, 2011, the plaintiff was required to jump through some hoops but finally prevailed on his cause of action claiming a violation of Section 240(1) of The New York Labor Law.

On January 16, 2009 The lower court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Thereafter following a jury verdict for defendants and entry of judgment on same, The Second Department, on April 19, 2011, reversed the judgment, reinstated the 240(1) cause of action and granted plaintiff’s original motion on his 240(1) cause of action. Based on the facts as set forth in the opinion it is difficult to understand why the motion was denied in the first place. The Court held as follows;

“The plaintiff, on his motion for summary judgment on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), against the defendants Manlyn Development Group, Inc., and FB of Long Island, LLC (hereinafter together the respondents), established, prima facie, that the A-frame ladder on which he was standing was defective and collapsed, causing his injuries (see Monioudis v City of New York, 82 AD3d 945; Zhu Wei Shi v Jun Lan Zhang, 76 AD3d 558, 559; Sozzi v Gramercy Realty Co. No. 2, 304 AD2d 555, 556).

In KARCZ v. KLEWIN BUILDING COMPANY, INC.,et. al., 4th Department, June 10, 2011, The Court affirmed summary judgment for the plaintiff on his 240(1) claim. The plaintiff had lifted a truss overhead onto the aerial platform of a scissor lift. The truss fell on him causing him to suffer injury. In affirming The Court held;

“The truss fell and struck plaintiff because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in Labor Law § 240 (1) (see Jock v Landmark Healthcare Facilities, LLC, 62 AD3d 1070, 1071-1072; Ullman v Musall, 306 AD2d 813). Thus, “the harm [to plaintiff] flow[ed] directly from the application of the force of gravity” (Runner v NewYork Stock Exch., Inc., 13 NY3d 599, 604). We reject defendants’contention that plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident. Rather, those actions, insofar as plaintiff may have moved toward the falling truss in an attempt to prevent it fromfalling, raise “at most, an issue of comparative negligence,” which is not an available defense under section 240 (1) (Dean v City of Utica,75 AD3d 1130, 1131).”

For those of you in The 4th Department The Court held that under the circumstances of this case the court rejected defendants’ contention that Labor Law vicarious liability provisions did not apply because plaintiff sustained the injury on an Indian reservation, i.e., that of the Seneca Nation.

In Nascimento v Bridgehampton Constr. Corp., New York Appellate Division, First Department, June 2, 2011, The Court dealt with the oft presented question as to whether a sub-contractor was a statutory agent of the general contractor for purposes of liability pursuant to New York Labor Law Sections 240(1) and 241(6). The facts of the case may be found by clicking on the decision above. What is interesting about this case is that it presents an excellent review of the law regarding this much litigated area which the Court discussed as follows:

“Initially, we reject plaintiff’s broad assertion; the law does not hold that all subcontractors in the “chain of command” are necessarily as liable as the general contractor. Rather, as a subcontractor rather than the general contractor, Bayview may be held liable for plaintiff’s injuries under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) only if it had the authority to supervise and control the work giving rise to the obligations imposed by these statutes, which would render it the general contractor’s statutory agent (Russin v Louis N. Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311, 317-318 [1981]; Murphy v Herbert Constr. Co., 297 AD2d 503 [2002]; Vieira v Tishman Constr. Corp., 255 AD2d 235 [1998]). To be treated as a statutory agent, the subcontractor must have been “delegated the supervision and control either over the specific work area involved or the work which [gave] rise to the injury” (Headen v Progressive Painting Corp., 160 AD2d 319, 320 [1990]). If the subcontractor’s area of authority is over a different portion of the work or a different area than the one in which the plaintiff was injured, there can be no liability under this theory (see Sabato v New York Life Ins. Co., 259 AD2d 535 [1999]; Headen, 160 AD2d at 319).

Subcontractors have been held to be the statutory agents of general contractors in situations in which provisions of the subcontracts explicitly granted supervisory authority (see Weber v Baccarat, Inc., 70 AD3d 487, 488 [2010]; Nephew v Klewin Bldg. Co., 21 AD3d 1419, 1421 [2005]), and those in which evidence showed that the subcontractors actually exercised supervisory authority (see Everitt v Nozkowski, 285 AD2d 442, 444 [2001]). Additionally, evidence that a subcontractor delegated the requisite supervision and control to another subcontractor has been cited as forming part of the proof that the first subcontractor formerly possessed that authority, and may justify imposing Labor Law liability on the first subcontractor as a statutory agent of the general contractor (see Weber v Baccarat, 70 AD3d at 488; Everitt v Nozkowski, 285 AD2d at 444). “