As he helped prepare the theater for its latest production, Joseph Scott Holler probably envisioned stars gracing the stage, rather then encircling his head. But the latter happened when this Brooklyn Academy of Music stagehand was unexpectedly struck by a falling object while assisting with the installation of a hoist motor used to lift theater scenery.
In Holler v. City of New York , Holler brought an action against the City of New York for personal injuries he incurred, claiming that they stemmed from violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6).
Labor Law § 240(1) provides that owners who contract for, but do not direct or control, the erection, repair, or alteration of a building are required to protect all workers. Labor Law § 241(6) provides that reasonable safety precautions must be implemented for employees working in all areas where construction work is being performed.
Upon completion of discovery, the City of New York sought summary judgment dismissing Holler's complaint, while Holler cross-moved for summary judgment based upon the alleged Labor Law violations.
The Kings County Supreme Court only granted that part of the City's motion which sought summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241(6) violations. Since the accident did not "arise from construction, excavation, or demolition work," the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified that outcome by finding that the City was also entitled to summary judgment on Holler's Labor Law § 240(1) claim.
While Labor Law § 240(1) is not limited to actual construction sites, the AD noted that the work performed by the injured employee must be of a nature which involves significant change to a structure. Where, as here, the work involved "routine maintenance," rather than significant physical changes, dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claims was also required.
Holler is proof that show business ain't all the glitz and glamour it's cut out to be.
For a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Holler v. City of New York