Posts
Since the Court of Appeals decided Runner v. New York Stock Exchange in June 2009, plaintiffs have been seeking to expand the application of the extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240(1) to facts and circumstances which involve any injury arising from the forces of gravity.
New York Labor Law § 240(1) provides in pertinent part as follows:
Scaffolding and other devices for use of employees.
All contractors and owners and their agents, except owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work, in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected for the performance of such labor, 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 a person so employed. McKinney's Labor Law § 240
In addition to falls from a height, Labor Law § 240(1) protects workers who are injured from certain types of falling objects. The types of falling object cases include objects being hoisted or lowered, as well as objects which need to be secured. Narducci v Manhasset Bay Associates, 96 NY2d 259 (2001); Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co. 81 NY2d 494, 505, 601 NYS2d 49, 618 NE2d 82. However, the extraordinary protections are not unlimited and should be strictly construed because they are in derogation with common-law. Accordingly, not every falling object invokes § 240, but only those which were sufficiently elevated.
In DeGabriel v. Strong Place Realty, LLC, et al. 2010 NY Slip Op 20380 (Supreme, Kings County, 2010), (Saitta, J.), plaintiff allegedly sustained bodily injury when a steel I-beam fell on his leg. Plaintiff and his co-workers were allegedly moving wood beams by sliding them across steel I-beams which were staked on the floor. The aforesstated process caused one of the I-beams to become dislodged and fall onto plaintiff’s leg. DeGabriel sought to invoke 240 in reliance upon the ratio deciendi of the Court of Appeals in the regard that the purported relevant inquiry is whether the harm flows directly from the application of the force of gravity to the object.
Justice Wayne Saitta of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rejected plaintiff's argument, dismissed the § 240(1) cause of action and denied plaintiff’s motions for renewal and reargument. Judge Saitta held that the object which injured the plaintiff was not being lowered or hoisted, nor was it being moved at the time of the accident. It was a stationary object, allegedly in a stack, on the floor. Since the beam was not being hoisted or lowered, it comes within the line of cases governing when failure to secure an object which later falls constitutes a violation of §240(1). This turns on whether the beam was sufficiently elevated in relation to plaintiff that it constituted a hazard and therefore should have been secured. This Court held in its original decision that since the beam was not located above the plaintiff it was not sufficiently elevated that the failure to secure it violated §240(1). Citing, Schreiner v.Cremose Cheese Corp., supra, 202 AD2d 657, 609 NYS2d 322 (2nd Dept 1994); Lucas v Fulton Realty Partners, LLC, 60 AD3d 1004, 876 NYS2d 480 (2nd Dept 2009); Cruz v Neil Hospitality, LLC, 50 AD3d 619, 855 NYS2d 219 (2nd Dept 2008).
