Finding its roots in a statute originally enacted back in 1885, Labor Law section 240 seeks to protect the safety of workers who use a scaffold, hoist, stay, ladder or other equipment or mechanical contrivance to erect, demolish, repair, alter, paint, clean, or point a building or structure (other than certain one- or two-family homes).*
Although some have interpreted the law as imposing "strict" or "absolute" liability in the event of injury, the New York State Court of Appeals has repeatedly expressed its disagreement with that analysis. In December 2003, for example, the court noted in Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, as follows:
Given the varying meanings of strict (or absolute) liability...it is not surprising that the concept has generated a good deal of litigation under Labor Law section 240 (1). The terms may have given rise to the mistaken belief that a fall from a scaffold or ladder, in and of itself, results in an award of damages to the injured party. That is not the law, and we have never held or suggested otherwise. As we stated...'[n]ot every worker who falls at a construction site, and not any object that falls on a worker, gives rise to the extraordinary protections of Labor Law section 240 (1).' Also, the Appellate Division had recognized as much...stating: 'the mere fact that [a plaintiff] fell off the scaffolding surface is insufficient, in and of itself, to establish that the device did not provide proper protection'....The application of this law was recently revisited by the Court of Appeals in Robinson v. East Medical Center, LP. In this 2006 decision, Douglas W. Robinson--a journeyman plumber--was installing pipe hanger systems at a job site in Fayetteville, New York, and selected a six-foot ladder when an eight-foot ladder would have been more appropriate for the task. During the course of Robinson's work, the ladder shifted causing him to injure his back as he repositioned the equipment back into place with one of his feet.
Put differently, an accident alone does not establish a Labor Law section 240 (1) violation or causation.
When Robinson later sued alleging various Labor Law violations, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, dismissed the case finding that, since he did not fall, Robinson "did not meet his initial burden of demonstrating his entitlement to recovery under the statute as a matter of law." On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal (but for reasons at odds with those cited in the Appellate Division's decision). As the state's highest court observed, in order for a statutory violation to be triggered, an owner or contractor must fail to provide a worker with adequate safety equipment and that omission must have led to the injuries sustained. No violation of the law can be found "if adequate safety devices are available at the job site, but the worker either does not use them or misuses them."
Ultimately, Mr. Robinson's decision, to use the wrong ladder, operated to his detriment. As the court concluded in the final sentence of its opinion:
Plaintiff's own negligent actions--choosing to use a six-foot ladder that he knew was too short for the work to be accomplished and then standing on the ladder's top cap in order to reach the work--were, as a matter of law, the sole proximate cause of his injuries.Clearly, Robinson reinforces the proposition that to achieve greater heights, one needs to be appropriately equipped.
For a copy of the Court of Appeals's 2003 decision in Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, please click on the following link:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2003/2003_19690.htm
For a copy of the Court of Appeals's 2006 decision in Robinson v. East Medical Center, LP, please click on the following link:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_02457.htm
For a copy of the Appellate Division's decision in the Robinson case, please click on the following link:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2005/2005_03380.htm
----------
*Labor Law section 240(1), "Scaffolding and other devices for use of employees," provides as follows:
1. 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. No liability pursuant to this subdivision for the failure to provide protection to a person so employed shall be imposed on professional engineers as provided for in article one hundred forty-five of the education law, architects as provided for in article one hundred forty-seven of such law or landscape architects as provided for in article one hundred forty-eight of such law who do not direct or control the work for activities other than planning and design. This exception shall not diminish or extinguish any liability of professional engineers or architects or landscape architects arising under the common law or any other provision of law.
To review the entire law, click on the following link and select the statute identified as Labor Law ("LAB"):
http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS