New Developments In New York Labor Law Sections 200, 240 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 67
About This Presentation
Title:

New Developments In New York Labor Law Sections 200, 240

Description:

New York Office: 10 Potter Lane. Suffern, N.Y. 10901. Table of Contents ... New York Labor Law Section 200. Issues Relating to Direction and Control ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:154
Avg rating:3.0/5.0

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: New Developments In New York Labor Law Sections 200, 240


1
New Developments InNew York Labor Law Sections
200, 240 241
  • Stephen Wellinghorst, Esquire
  • Wellinghorst Fronzuto, L.L.C.
  • 4 Franklin Avenue
  • Ridgewood, N.J. 07450
  • (201) 251-0046

New York Office 10 Potter Lane Suffern, N.Y.
10901
2
Table of Contents
  • New York Labor Law Section 200
  • New York Labor Law Section 240
  • New York Labor Law Section 241
  • Contribution and Indemnification Issues

3
New York Labor Law Section 200Purpose
  • Section 200 merely codifies common-law duty of
    owner or general contractor to provide safe place
    for workers at construction site.

4
New York Labor Law Section 200History and
Evolution
  • Employer originally had a common law duty to
    provide a safe workplace.
  • Section 200 extended the common law by including
    within workplace, tools and appliances.
  • Section 200 has also made the duty non-delegable.

5
New York Labor Law Section 200Application of
Section 200
  • Section 200 only applies where there is actual or
    constructive notice of an alleged dangerous
    condition and control by an entity.
  • EVERYONE GETS SUED!!

6
New York Labor Law Section 200Issues Relating to
Direction and Control
  • Generally, Section 200 only applies to entities
    who are able to exercise control over work.
  • Party charged with violation of Section 200 must
    be shown to have exercised sufficient control
    over work being performed to have been in
    position to correct or avoid unsafe condition.
    Rosas v Ishack, 631 N.Y.S.2d 417 (2nd Dept.
    1995).
  • Defendant was entitled to summary judgment in
    action under Section 200 since its contract with
    owner was limited to demolition and construction
    of 2 walls, without any right to control
    worksite. Saaverda v East Fordham Rd. Real Estate
    Corp., 649 N.Y.S.2d 416 (1st Dept. 1996).

7
New York Labor Law Section 200Notice Issues
  • The common-law duty to provide a safe place to
    work is embodied in subdivision 1 of Section 200
    and to be charged with negligence for breach of
    this duty, an owner must have notice, either
    constructive or actual, of the dangerous
    condition which caused the accident.

8
New York Labor Law Section 200Notice Issues,
Continued
  • There is no liability under Section 200 where the
    alleged dangerous condition is open and obvious.
  • See e.g. Panetta v. Paramount Communs., 681
    N.Y.S.2d 85 (2nd Dept. 1998). Liability for
    common-law negligence and violation of Section
    200 did not attach, because dangerous condition
    complained of was open and obvious, where
    plaintiff hit his head on overhead pipe that was
    part of scaffolding at work site.

9
New York Labor Law Section 240Statute
  • All contractors and owners (with the exception of
    single and two family homeowners) who are
    performing erection, demolition, repairing,
    altering, painting or cleaning of a building
    shall be required to furnish scaffolding, hoists,
    stays, ladders and other devices to all persons
    performing such work.

10
New York Labor Law Section 240Purpose and
Requirements
  • The purpose of this law is to protect workers
    engaged in construction activities involving
    heights by mandating the use of protective
    equipment and charging the responsibility for
    provision of such equipment to the owner of the
    site. The law exempts single and two family
    homeowners from its applicability unless such are
    exercising control over the work. Also exempt are
    professional engineers and architects so long as
    they are not directing the work being performed.

11
New York Labor Law Section 240Purpose and
Requirements, Continued
  • In addition, the law requires that scaffolding
    over 20 feet high is mandated to have a safety
    rail that is at least 34 inches above the floor
    of the platform and must be fastened to avoid
    swaying. Finally, all scaffolding must be able
    to bear weight four times that which will be
    placed on it when in use.

12
New York Labor Law Section 240History and
Evolution
  • The laws origins trace back to 1885 which made
    the failure to provide scaffolding a misdemeanor
    for the employer. It has been amended multiple
    times over the years to increase the scope of the
    statute and protection afforded to the workers.
    In 1921, it was amended to require lings,
    hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons and ropes
    as well as the original requirements of
    scaffolding.

13
New York Labor Law Section 240History and
Evolution, Continued
  • The duties imposed under the statute are
    non-delegable and an owner or general contractor
    will not escape liability by delegating the
    responsibility to other contractors or
    subcontractors. See e.g. Kelly v. Diesel
    Construction, 35 N.Y.2d 1 (1974), Rocha v. State
    of New York, 45 A.D.2d 633 (3d Dept. 1974)

14
New York Labor Law Section 240History and
Evolution, Continued
  • Section 240 was intended by legislature to place
    ultimate responsibility for building practices on
    property owners and contractors not the workers
    who are scarcely in a position to protect
    themselves from accidents. Lombardi v. Stout, 80
    N.Y.2d 290 (1992). (Because the unions in New
    York are so weak.)

15
New York Labor Law Section 240History and
Evolution, Continued
  • Liability is mandated against an owner or
    contractor who fails to provide appropriate
    safety devices, regardless of what the terms of
    the contract provide or what the custom and
    practice in the construction industry may be. If
    evidence establishes absence of safety devices,
    Section 240 has been violated. Zimmer v. Chemung
    County Performing Arts, 65 N.Y.2d 513 (1985)

16
New York Labor Law Section 240Liability of
Particular Entities
  • Although the law exempts single and two family
    homeowners from its applicability unless such are
    exercising control over the work. Also exempt are
    professional engineers and architects so long as
    they are not directing the work being performed.
    However, such persons can still be held liable
    under common law or other provisions of the law.

17
New York Labor Law Section 240Activities Covered
by Statute Injury Related to Force of Gravity
  • ROCOVICH V. CONSOLIDATED EDISON, 78 N.Y.2d 509
    (1991) CASE INVOLVED ROOFER WORKING ON A ROOF
    WHO SLIPPED AND FELL INTO 12 TROUGH WHICH RAN
    ALONG THE ROOFLINE. PLAINTIFF ARGUED THAT THERE
    WAS SOME ELEVATION THUS SECTION 240 APPLIED.
    COURT HELD THAT 12 INCH ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL
    DID NOT MANDATE USE OF PROTECTIVE DEVICES UNDER
    SECTION 240. 12 NOT ENOUGH TO TRIGGER SECTION
    240.

18
New York Labor Law Section 240Activities Covered
by Statute Injury Related to Force of Gravity
  • COURT ESTABLISHED APPLICATION OF STATUTE WHEN
    DIFFERENCE IN HEIGHT BETWEEN WORKER AND LEVEL
    BELOW WORKER OR WHEN DIFFERENCE IN HEIGHT BETWEEN
    WORKER AND MATERIALS BEING HOISTED OR SECURED
    ABOVE WORKER.
  • COURT ALSO RULED THE HEIGHT ALONE IS NOT THE SOLE
    CRITERIA FOR APPLICATION OF SECTION 240.
  • APPLICABILITY DETERMINED CASE BY CASE.

19
New York Labor Law Section 240Activities Covered
by Statute Special Hazard
  • AlROSS V. CURTIS PALMER, 81 N.Y.2d 494 (1993)
    COURT EXPANDED ROCOVICH TO REQUIRE THAT INJURY
    MUST HAVE A DIRECT CONNECTION TO DANGERS POSED BY
    RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH GRAVITY BEFORE LIABILITY
    ATTACHES (PLAINTIFF WORKING ON SCAFFOLDING BUT
    DID NOT FALL FROM SUCH).
  • COURT HELD THAT SECTION 240 WAS DESIGNED TO
    PREVENT THOSE TYPES OF ACCIDENTS IN WHICH THE
    SCAFFOLD ETC PROVED INADEQUATE TO SHIELD THE
    WORKER FROM HARM.

20
New York Labor Law Section 240 Activities
Covered by Statute Special Hazard
  • NARDUCCI V. MANHASSET BAY ASSOCIATES, 96 N.Y.2d
    (2001) PLAINTIFF INJURED WHEN GLASS FELL UPON
    HIM WHILE STANDING ON A LADDER COURT FOUND THE
    LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 240 CONTINGENT UPON THE
    EXISTENCE OF A HAZARD CONTEMPLATED BY THE
    STATUTE. AS SUCH, FALLING OBJECTS WOULD BE
    COVERED UNDER SECTION 240 IF RELATED TO ITEMS
    BEING HOISTED OR SECURED OR IF IT IS PART OF
    BUILDING BEING WORKED ON.

21
New York Labor Law Section 240 Activities
Covered by Statute Height Specifications
  • SECTION 240 DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR HEIGHT
    SPECIFICATION FOR APPLICABILITY OF STATUTE
  • THOMPSON V. ST. CHARLES CONDOMINIUMS, 756
    N.Y.S.2d 530 (1ST Dept. 2003) PLAINTIFF WAS
    MASON TENDER WHO PLACED BRICKS AND MORTAR ON FOUR
    FOOT HIGH SAWHORSE SCAFFOLD FOR BRICK LAYER TO
    USE. BRICK LAYER CLIMBED SCAFFOLD WHICH
    COLLAPSED AND BLOCK FELL ON PLAINTIFF ON GROUND.
    COURT HELD THAT THERE IS NO DE MINIMUS HEIGHT FOR
    SECTION 240 TO APPLY. COURT FOUND APPLICABILITY
    OF 240 BECAUSE OF FAILURE OF PRESENCE OF SAFETY
    DEVISE RATHER THAN HEIGHT.

22
New York Labor Law Section 240 Activities
Covered by Statute Typical Hazards
  • COURTS HAVE FOUND APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 240 IN
    THE FOLLOWING SITUATIONS
  • ELEVATED RAMPS
  • FIRE ESCAPE LADDER FALL OFF BUILDING
  • PAINTING DIVING BOARD OF POOL
  • LADDERS (BOTH SECURED AND UNSECURED)

23
New York Labor Law Section 240Devices Involved
with StatuteTrucks
  • COURT DETERMINED THAT FALLING FROM A CONSTRUCTION
    VEHICLE IS NOT AN ELEVATED RISK CONTEMPLATED BY
    SECTION 240 (BOND V. YORK HUNTER CONSTRUCTION, 95
    N.Y.2d 993 (2000).

24
New York Labor Law Section 240 Devices Involved
with StatuteTrucks
  • CASES ALSO HOLD THAT LOADING AND UNLOADING OF
    TRUCKS IS NOT ELEVATED RISK UNDER SECTION 240
    (CABEZAS V. CON ED, 296 A.D.2d 522 (2d Dept.
    2002))
  • MOST CASES INVOLVING TRUCKS ARE RESOLVED IN FAVOR
    OF DEFENDANTS UNLESS TRUCK BEING USED AS PLATFORM
    TO PERFORM ELEVATED WORK.

25
New York Labor Law Section 240 Devices Involved
with StatuteStairways and Fixed Structures
  • COURTS HAVE CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT SECTION 240
    DOES NOT APPLY TO SLIP AND FALLS IN STAIRWAYS AS
    STAIRS ARE NOT CONSIDERED SAFETY DEVICES IF
    PERMANENT PART OF BUILDING (MILANESE V.
    KELLERMAN, 41 A.D.3D 1058 (3D DEPT. 2007)
  • THE CONTROLLING FACTOR IN THESE CASES IS NOT
    WHETHER THE DEVICE IS PERMANENT BUT WHETHER IT
    SERVES THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING AN ELEVATED
    PLATFORM. (SOMETIMES STAIRS ARE CONSIDERED
    ELEVATED WORK PLATFORMS.)

26
New York Labor Law Section 240 Devices Involved
with StatuteElevators
  • GENERALLY, SECTION 240 WILL NOT APPLY EVEN THOUGH
    ELEVATORS ARE INHERENTLY HEIGHT RELATED.

27
New York Labor Law Section 240Risks Covered by
Statute
  • SECTION 240 RELATES NOT ONLY TO CONSTRUCTION OF
    BUILDING BUT DEMOLITION, REPAIR, ALTERATION,
    CLEANING AND OTHER MAINTENCE RELATED WORK

28
New York Labor Law Section 240 Risks Covered by
Statute, Continued
  • BUSTAMANTE V. CHASE MANHATTAN, 241 A.D.2d 327
    (1ST Dept. 1997) PLAINTIFF FELL OFF LADDER WHEN
    CLEANING TOPS OF PARTITIONS SECTION 240
    APPLICABLE.
  • VERNUM V. ZILKA, 241 A.D.2d 885 (3d Dept. 1997)
    PLAINTIFF SHOVELING SNOW OFF ROOF CONSIDERED
    CLEANING AND SECTION 240 APPLICABLE WHEN INJURY
    OCCURRED.

29
New York Labor Law Section 240 Risks Covered by
StatuteAlteration of Premises
  • COURT RULINGS ON THIS TYPE OF WORK HAVE FOUND
    THAT SECTION 240 IS APPLICABLE IF THE WORK BEING
    PERFORMED RESULTS IN A SUBSTANTIAL PHYSICAL
    CHANGE TO THE BUILDING OR ITS COMPONENTS (JOBLON
    V. SOLO, 91 N.Y.2d 457 (2004)).

30
New York Labor Law Section 240 Risks Covered by
StatuteWork Associated with Construction
  • CASES FIND APPLICATION OF SECTION 240 IN SUCH
    SITUATIONS AS REPAIRING BACK HOE DURING
    CONSTRUCTION OF PIPELINE (COVEY V. IROQUOIS GAS,
    89 N.Y.2d. 952 (1997)), INSPECTION OF
    CONSTRUCTION SITE (MCMANN V. HSM PACKING CORP.,
    755 N.Y.S.2d 186 (4TH Dept. 2004), PERFORMANCE OF
    SECURITY GUARD DUTIES (SPAULDING V. BAY RIDGE,
    759 N.Y.S.2d 179 (2d Dept. 2005).

31
New York Labor Law Section 240 Risks Covered by
StatuteRepair and Maintenance
  • GENERALLY, ROUTINE MAINTENANCE IS NOT COVERED
    UNDER SECTION 240 UNLESS IT IS AN INTEGRAL PART
    OF SOME OTHER COVERED ACTIVITY I.E. MAINTENCE
    WORKER INJURED IN ACTIVE CONSTUCTION SITE.

32
New York Labor Law Section 240Liabilities of
Particular Entities
  • SECTION 240 IS A CATEGORY OF PREMISES LIABILITY.
    ABSENT A SHOWING THAT DEFENDANT COULD NOT CONTROL
    THE ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH PLAINTIFFS WORK,
    LIABILITY CANNOT ATTACH. HOWEVER, IF WORK BEING
    DONE IS INTEGRAL AND NECESSARY TO THE
    CONTEMPLATED CONSTRUCTION, IT IS COVERED.

33
New York Labor Law Section 240Liabilities of
Particular Entities, Continued
  • SECTION 240 APPLIES TO ALL CONTRACTORS, OWNERS
    AND THEIR AGENTS WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THE
    DEMOLITION, CONSTRUTION, REPAIR OF BUILDINGS AND
    STRUCTURES. APPLIES TO ALL OWNERS REGARDLESS OF
    DEGREE OF CONTROL OR EVEN WHETHER OWNER
    CONTRACTED FOR WORK OR BENEFITTED FROM IT (GORDON
    V. EASTERN RAILWAY SUPPLY, 82 N.Y.2d 555 (1993)).

34
New York Labor Law Section 240Liabilities of
Particular Entities, Continued
  • STATUTE WILL NOT APPLY IF PERFORMED WITHOUT
    CONSENT, IN VIOLATION OF LEASE AND STATUTE
    (SANATASS V. CONSOLIDATED INVESTING CO., 38
    A.D.3d 332 (1ST Dept. 2007)).

35
New York Labor Law Section 240Liabilities of
Particular Entities, Continued
  • SECTION 240 IS NON-DELEGABLE FOR GENERAL
    CONTRACTORS. CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS MAY BE HELD
    LIABLE IF HAVE DUTY TO CONTROL THE WORK GIVING
    RISE TO THE INJURY (KENNY V. GEORGE A FULLER CO.,
    87 A.D. 183 (2d Dept. 1982) PINO V. IRVINGTON
    UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, 43 A.D.3d 1130 (2d
    Dept. 2007)).

36
New York Labor Law Section 240Liabilities of
Particular Entities, Continued
  • INDEPENDENT PRIME CONTRACTORS NOT LIABLE UNDER
    SECTION 240 FOR INJURIES SUSTAINED OUTSIDE THE
    SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDED IN CONTRACT. SAME APPLIES
    TO SUBCONTRACTORS ON A PROJECT (AVERSANO V. JWH
    CONTRACTING LLC., 37 A.D.3d 745 (2d. Dept.
    2007)).
  • (BUT GOOD LUCK GETTING OUT ONCE YOUR COMPANY IS
    NAMED.)

37
New York Labor Law Section 240Defenses
AvailablePlaintiffs Own Conduct
  • IF ACTIONS OF PLAINTIFF ARE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE
    OF INJURY, SECTION 240 INAPPLICABLE (WEININGER V
    HAEDORN, 91 N.Y.2d 958 (2004)). HOWEVER, VERY
    FACT SPECIFIC AND COURTS DO NOT LIKE TO RULE THIS
    WAY.

38
New York Labor Law Section 240Defenses
AvailableProvision of Safety Equipment
  • PLAINTIFF INJURY WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED IF USED
    SAFETY EQUIPMENT PROVIDED (LENIAR V. METRO
    TRANSIT AUTHORITY, 37 A.D.3d 425 (2d Dept. 2007))
  • GENERALLY QUESTION OF WHETHER SAFETY DEVICE WAS
    ADEQUATE IS QUESTION OF FACT UNLESS ESTABLISHED
    AS MATTER OF LAW THAT COLLAPSED, WAS DEFECTIVE OR
    WAS IMPROPERLY PLACED (NORWOOD V. WHITING-TURNER
    CONSTRUCTION, 40 A.D.3d 718 (2d Dept. 2007))

39
New York Labor Law Section 240Defenses
AvailableRecalcitrant Worker
  • WHEN DEFENDANT CAN SHOW THAT ACCIDENT SOLELY
    CAUSED BY REFUSAL OF PLAINTIFF TO USE SAFETY
    EQUIPMENT, SECTION 240 INAPPLICABLE (SMITH V.
    HOOKER, 89 A.D.2d. 361) CHIMBORAZO V. WCL
    ASSOCIATES, 37 A.D.3d 394 (2d. Dept. 2007)).

40
New York Labor Law Section 240Defenses
AvailableSuperseding Cause
  • PROVISION OF EVIDENCE THAT EVENT CAUSING
    PLAINTIFF INJURY NOT FORSEEABLE HANDLED BY COURT
    IN SAME MANNER AS TYPICAL NEGLIGENCE MATTERS.

41
New York Labor Law Section 240Defenses
AvailableEngineer and Architect Exception
  • SECTION 240 INAPPLICABLE TO THESE PERSONS SO LONG
    AS NOT DIRECTING OR CONTROLLING WORK ACTIVITIES
    (HAMBY V. HIGH STEEL STRUCTURES INC., 134 A.D.2D
    884 (4TH Dept. 2004)).

42
New York Labor Law Section 240Summary Judgment
and Dismissal
  • CONSTRUCTION MANAGER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    WHEN ROLE WAS ONLY ONE OF GENERAL SUPERVISION
    (DELAHAYE V. ST. ANNES SCHOOL, 40 A.D.3d 679 (2d
    Dept. 2007))

43
New York Labor Law Section 240Summary Judgment
and Dismissal,Continued
  • GENERAL CONTRACTOR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    WHEN PLAINTIFF ACCIDENT NOT PROXIMATELY CAUSED BY
    STATUTE VIOLATION AND PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVIDE
    SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO RAISE QUESTION OF FACT
    (CAMLICA V. HANSSON, 40 A.D.3d 796 (2d Dept.
    2007)).

44
New York Labor Law Section 240Evidentiary Issues
  • INCIDENT REPORT MIGHT BE ADMITTED AS A BUSINDESS
    RECORD AT TRIAL (BUCKLEY V. J.A. JONES/GMO, 38
    A.D.3D 461 (1ST Dept. 2007). (I PREFER THAT
    INCIDENT REPORTS ARE PREPARED.)

45
New York Labor Law Section 241Purpose
  • 241 imposes nondelegable duty upon all owners and
    contractors to provide certain safe
    appurtenances, and safe place to work, for all of
    employees at construction site
  • apparent intention of legislature to place
    ultimate responsibility for injury on those who
    are in best position to insure safety of work
    place
  • owner's duty to insure that scaffolding employed
    at work site is constructed, placed, and operated
    so as to give proper protection to employees is
    wholly independent of owner's actual control or
    supervision of workplace

46
New York Labor Law Section 241History and
Evolution
  • Prior to 1962 the section was phrased in language
    substantially the same as that appearing today.
  • In 1962 the Legislature made direction or control
    a prerequisite to strict liability.
  • However, in 1969 the section was amended as it
    now appears with a reimposition of the rule of
    strict liability.

47
New York Labor Law Section 241History and
Evolution, Continued
  • Owners of one and two family dwellings are
    exempted from the strict liability of Section 241
    where they exercise no direction or control.
  • Owners of one and two family dwellings will, of
    course, be liable in any situation where they
    direct or control the work, or where negligence
    may otherwise be proved against them.

48
New York Labor Law Section 241Application of
Section 241
  • Applicable to Construction, excavation, or
    demolition work.
  • Legislature sought to protect workers from
    industrial accidents specifically in connection
    with construction, demolition, or excavation
    work. If the work constitutes maintenance,
    then plaintiff is not entitled to base a claim
    under Section 241. Nagel v. DR Realty Corp., 99
    N.Y.2d. 98 (Ct. of App. 2002).
  • If defendant can show that plaintiffs injuries
    did not arise from construction, excavation or
    demolition work, then defendant is entitled to a
    dismissal of plaintiffs Section 241 claims. See
    e.g. Holler v. City of New York, 38 App. Div. 3d
    606 (2nd Dept. 2007).

49
New York Labor Law Section 241Application of
Section 241, Continued
  • There must be control, direction, and
    supervision.
  • If the owner or general contractor does not
    exercise authority or supervisory control over
    the work site, plaintiffs Section 241 claims may
    be dismissed. See e.g. Berg v. Albany Ladder
    Co., Inc., 836 N.Y.S.2d 720 (3rd Dept. 2007), and
    Burnett v. Waterford Custom Homes, Inc., 838
    N.Y.S.2d 286 (4th Dept. 2007).

50
New York Labor Law Section 241Violations of
Local Code as a Means of Liability
  • Plaintiff must establish a causal connection
    between the code violated and the happening of
    the accident.
  • Violation of the code must be a substantial
    factor in the happening of the accident.
  • Whether rule applies to the facts is a threshold
    issue to be addressed by the court as a matter of
    law.
  • Whether the code was violated and was a proximate
    cause of the accident will generally be a
    question of fact to be determined by a jury.

51
New York Labor Law Section 241Violations of
Local Code as a Means of Liability, Continued
  • See e.g. Kreamer v. Amsterdam High School, 716
    N.Y.S.2d 452 (3rd Dept. 2000). Court held that
    code was applicable and was violated. The
    violation was a proximate cause of plaintiffs
    injury.

52
New York Labor Law Section 241Notice Issues
  • As a general rule, lack of actual or constructive
    notice of a dangerous condition is not a defense
    to a claim under Section 241. See e.g. Amirr v
    Calcagno Constr. Co., 684 N.Y.S.2d 280 (2nd Dept.
    1999), and Rizzuto v L.A. Wenger Contr. Co., 670
    N.Y.S.2d 816 (1998).

53
New York Labor Law Section 241Summary Judgment
Issues
  • Where a factual issue or dispute exists, summary
    judgment must be denied.
  • Where there is no evidence of control, direction
    or supervision, summary judgment is appropriate.
    See e.g. Delahaye v. Saint Anns School, 836
    N.Y.S.2d 233 (2nd Dept. 2007). Court held that
    construction manager entitled to summary judgment
    as the record demonstrated that the role of the
    construction manager was only one of general
    supervision, which was insufficient to impose
    liability.

54
New York Labor Law Section 241Covered Activities
and People
  • Section 241 covers work which involves
    construction or excavation.
  • Injury which occurs while performing activity not
    involved in construction or excavation is not
    covered by section 241. See e.g. Malczewski v
    Cannon Design, Inc., 510 N.Y.S.2d 339 (4th Dept.
    1986). Court held that employee injured while
    moving computer equipment was not performing
    construction or excavation, and section 241 did
    not apply.

55
New York Labor Law Section 241Covered Activities
and People
  • Protection of Section 241 extends to employees
    present at worksite, even if they are not engaged
    in actual construction. Williamson v Borg
    Florman Dev. Corp., 594 N.Y.S.2d 778 (1st Dept.
    1993).
  • Neither plaintiff's allegedly improper conduct in
    obtaining his employment nor his status as
    illegal alien barred him from maintaining suit
    for personal injuries based on asserted
    violations of Section 241. Mazur v Rock-McGraw,
    Inc., 666 N.Y.S.2d 939 (2nd Dept. 1998).

56
New York Labor Law Section 241Covered Activities
and People, Continued
  • Plaintiff, employee of company retained by
    construction manager to inspect steel work and
    fireproofing at construction project, was person
    entitled to protection of Section 241 where he
    went to construction site to inspect steel
    columns for rust, dirt, or other materials which
    might prevent fireproofing from adhering to steel
    surface. Crowther v City of New York, 692
    N.Y.S.2d 439 (2nd Dept. 1999).

57
New York Labor Law Section 241Covered Activities
and People, Continued
  • General contractor and gas company were entitled
    to dismissal of cause of action under Section 241
    to recover for injuries sustained in slip and
    fall on gravel during disembarkation from bus at
    intersection that was under construction since
    bus passenger is not member of special class of
    persons protected by statute. Neely v Buffalo,
    569 N.Y.S.2d 252 (4th Dept. 1991).

58
New York Labor Law Section 241Covered Activities
and People, Continued
  • Night watchman who fell through opening in floor
    at building owned by his employer, which was
    undergoing renovations, was not entitled to
    protection under Section 241. Blandon v Advance
    Contr. Co., 695 N.Y.S.2d 36 (1st Dept. 1999).

59
New York Labor Law Section 241Covered Activities
and People, Continued
  • Non-employees are typically not a person
    employed within the meaning of Section 241.
    See e.g. Tobias v DiFazio Elec., Inc., 732
    N.Y.S.2d 441(2nd Dept. 2001).
  • Volunteers typically are not covered by Section
    241. See e.g. Alver v. Duarte, 439 N.Y.S.2d 501
    (3rd Dept. 1981). (Holding section 241,
    pertaining to the duty to provide a safe place of
    employment, does not furnish a cause of action to
    a man who fell from a porch roof while working on
    a volunteer basis without pay in assisting his
    daughter and son-in-law with construction of a
    house.)

60
New York Labor Law Section 241Liability of
Particular Entities Under the Statute - Owner
  • Generally, Section 241 applies to owner of land
    and/or building.
  • Liability under Section 241 lies against owner of
    land on which building is located,
    notwithstanding that owner may not own building
    itself. Cannino v Locust Valley Fire Dist., 661
    N.Y.S.2d 240 (2nd Dept. 1997).

61
New York Labor Law Section 241Liability of
Particular Entities Under the Statute - Homeowner
  • Generally, Section 241 does not apply to owners
    of one and two family dwellings unless owner
    directs or controls the work.
  • See e.g. Pesa v. Ginsberg, 589 N.Y.S.2d 330 (1st
    Dept. 1992). Owner of single-family dwelling was
    properly granted summary judgment dismissing
    action under Section 241 brought by painter who
    was injured while attempting to move furniture in
    course of performing painting contract since
    offering suggestions, lending tools, pointing out
    areas that need to be painted, and selecting
    paint to be used was insufficient to cast
    homeowner in liability.

62
New York Labor Law Section 241Liability of
Particular Entities Under the Statute General
Contractor
  • Typically a general contractor and owner are
    vicariously liable under Section 241 without
    regard to their own fault.
  • General contractor has a duty to comply with all
    applicable codes and regulations regarding the
    construction project.
  • See e.g. Farina v Plaza Constr. Co., 655 N.Y.S.2d
    952 (1st Dept. 1997).

63
New York Labor Law Section 241Liability of
Particular Entities Under the Statute
Subcontractor
  • Although Section 241 does not expressly apply to
    subcontractors, if subcontractor is delegated
    authority to supervise and control work he/she
    thus became statutory agent of contractor. See
    e.g. Leon v J M Peppe Realty Corp., 596
    N.Y.S.2d 380 (1st Dept. 1993).

64
New York Labor Law Section 241Liability of
Particular Entities Under the Statute
Governmental Entity
  • Section 241 does not apply to governmental
    entities where the entity does not own the
    property in question and does not supervise or
    control the construction.
  • See e.g. Kowalska v Board of Educ., 688 N.Y.S.2d
    598 (2nd Dept 1999). Court held that N.Y. Board
    of Education was not liable for plaintiffs
    injuries because the Board did not own the
    property and the construction project was under
    control of authority that was not party to
    action.

65
Contribution and Indemnification,Generally
  • LABOR LAW 240 AND 241 IMPOSE A NON-DELEGABLE DUTY
    ON ALL CONTRACTORS, OWNERS AND THEIR AGENTS. DUTY
    CAN BE ASSIGNED TO ANOTHER BUT LIABILITY TO
    INJURED WORKER STILL REMAINS WITH THE CONTRACTOR,
    OWNERS AND THEIR AGENTS.

66
Contribution and Indemnification,Generally
  • CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF PLAINTIFF IS NOT A
    DEFENSE AS STATUTE IMPOSES ABSOLUTE LIABILITY ON
    OWNER TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE SAFETY DEVICES
    (LAFLEUR V. CONSOLIDATED EDISON, 245 A.D.2d 36
    (2d Dept. 2004)).

67
Indemnification(The abyss)
  • VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND SEEKING REIMBURSMENT FROM
    THE ULTIMATE WRONGDOER
  • UNDER CPLR SECTION 14, OWNER HAS LEGAL RIGHT TO
    REIMBURSMENT FOR DAMAGES TO PLAINTIFF FROM ALL
    CONTRACTORS WHO ASSUMED RESPONSIBILITY TO PERFORM
    WORK GIVING RISE TO PLAINTIFF INJURY (MAS V. TWO
    BRIDGES ASSOCIATION, 75 N.Y.2d 680 (1998)). OWNER
    MUST BE ZERO LIABLE.
  • FOR COMMON LAW INDEMNIFICATION, SEE NASSAU
    ROOFING AND SHEET METAL CO V. FACILITIES DEV.
    CORP., 125 A.D.2D 754 (2d. Dept. 2002).
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com