A New York laborer won summary judgment against a property owner and general contractor under the “Scaffolding Law” (Labor Law § 240(1)) when he was injured after falling from a ladder. In Chornopyskyy v. 151 Ludlow Owner LLC, the Kings County Supreme Court entered summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor, holding that there was a violation of the Scaffolding Law that proximately caused plaintiff’s injuries. While the court noted that an accident alone does not establish a 240(1) violation, it found that plaintiff presented prima facie evidence to support his claim under the law.
Plaintiff was working a construction project in a five-story building and was directed to clean the ceiling of the first floor. In his deposition, he testified that the flooring was old and sagged under pressure, which his supervisor warned him about before the accident occurred. Plaintiff also testified that the only two ladders available to him were A-frame ladders in poor condition. He chose to use the one that was in slightly better condition, although it wobbled and appeared old with worn treads and rounded steps. He complained to his supervisor about the condition of the floor and ladder, but was told he had to continue working because no other ladders were available. While plaintiff was on the ladder removing nails from a ceiling beam, the ladder began to shake and the floor beneath the ladder began to sag. Due to this combination of events, plaintiff testified that he was thrown off the ladder and into a pile of debris.
The Scaffolding Law imposes a non-delegable duty on owners, general contractors and their agents that renders them liable, regardless of whether they supervise or control the work, for failure to provide proper protection from elevation-related hazards. Liability can only be avoided if the plaintiff’s own actions are the sole proximate cause of the accident. This causation can be shown if the plaintiff 1) had adequate safety devices available, 2) knew the safety devises were available and was expected to use them, (3) chose for no reason not to use them, and (4) would not have been injured if he had not made that choice.
The court found that plaintiff’s testimony regarding the condition of the floors and ladders, as well as his description of the cause of the accident, raised a presumption that the ladder was not properly secured and presented prima facie evidence of a violation of 240(1). The court further held that the property owner and general contractor failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident. The court did not find any record evidence that supported any of the four prongs of the sole causation standard to rebut defendant’s liability. Thus, summary judgment was granted in plaintiff’s favor.
Clark & Fox is a firm of experienced lawyers with diverse international practices that focuses on representing the interests of the insurance industry. Information about all of Clark & Fox’s locations, attorneys, and practice areas is available on http://www.clarkfoxlaw.com/
For more information, please contact:
John M. Clark, CEO/President: jclark@clarkfoxlaw.com
