From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McAdam v. Sadler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 1, 1991
170 A.D.2d 960 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

February 1, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Curran, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Balio, JJ.


Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiff's claim pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) should have been dismissed. Owners of one-family homes who contract for but do not "direct or control" the work are exempt from the duty imposed by the statute (see, Cannon v Putnam, 76 N.Y.2d 644). The evidence submitted in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment established that defendant, who owns a one-family home and entered into a contract with plaintiff's employer to install vinyl siding, did not direct or control the work. The fact that defendant agreed to allow plaintiff to borrow his stepladder, without more, does not create a factual issue concerning defendant's direction or control of the work (see, Reyes v Silfies, 168 A.D.2d 979; Balduzzi v West, 141 Misc.2d 944, 947, affd 144 A.D.2d 1036, lv dismissed 74 N.Y.2d 650).

Plaintiff's claim pursuant to Labor Law § 200 also should have been dismissed. An owner's duty to provide a safe workplace does not encompass protecting workers against defects that are readily apparent (see, Gasper v Ford Motor Co., 13 N.Y.2d 104, 110, mot to amend remittitur granted 13 N.Y.2d 893). Here, the defective condition of the ladder was readily observable and plaintiff admitted at an examination before trial that he knew that the ladder was unsafe and so informed his supervisor on three occasions prior to his accident.

Finally, the court erred by failing to dismiss plaintiff's claim alleging common-law negligence. Defendant here was, at most, a gratuitous bailor, who owed a user of the chattel a duty to warn of any defects of which he had actual notice. That duty, however, does not extend to defects which are patent (see, Sofia v Carlucci, 122 A.D.2d 263; Daoust v Palmenteri, 109 A.D.2d 774, 775). Here, plaintiff admitted that he was aware of the defective condition of the ladder.


Summaries of

McAdam v. Sadler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 1, 1991
170 A.D.2d 960 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

McAdam v. Sadler

Case Details

Full title:JOHN T. McADAM, Respondent, v. GERALD SADLER, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Feb 1, 1991

Citations

170 A.D.2d 960 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
566 N.Y.S.2d 130

Citing Cases

Vincent v. Dresser Industries

While an owner will not usually be held liable for injuries to employees of a subcontractor caused by the…

Valentia v. Giusto

Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant did consent to plaintiff's use of his ladder, he did not direct…