Section 240 - Scaffolding and other devices for use of employees

9 Analyses of this statute by attorneys

  1. Falling From a Scaffold in New York Can Be a Triable Issue of Fact Under Labor Law § 240

    Marshall DenneheyDean AroninNovember 15, 2023

    Arizaga v. Lex Gardens II TP4 Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 78 Misc. 3d 1216(A), 185 N.Y.S.3d 646 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)The plaintiff, a carpenter, was performing work on a scaffold when the planks of the scaffold lifted up, causing him to lose his balance and fall off of the scaffold. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment against the owner and the general contractor, claiming a New York Labor Law § 240 violation. He argued that the planks of the scaffold were inadequately secured, which caused his fall off of the scaffold.The defendants argued that the plaintiff fell only two feet and fell toward the lateral side of the scaffold. The plaintiff argued that he had testified that it was five-foot fall off of the scaffold into the metal scaffold assembly.The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment because there was a triable issue of fact as to whether his fall was caused by a height differential as contemplated by New York Labor Law § 240.This case demonstrates that a construction worker’s fall off of a scaffold does not always equate to being victorious on a motion for summary judgment involving a New York Labor Law § 240 claim.

  2. "Recalcitrant Worker" Defense to NY Labor Law § 240(1) a After Biaca-Neto

    Harris Beach PLLCOmar NasarMarch 21, 2020

    While working on a construction site, Plaintiff observed his coworker pull himself up to a scaffold beam (seven feet above the scaffold platform), unhook his safety belt, and enter the building through a window cut-out. Plaintiff then attempted the same maneuver but slipped and fell to the scaffold platform. Plaintiff testified that he knew he “wasn’t supposed to pass through there.” Prior to the incident, Plaintiff’s employer instituted a standing order that employees were not permitted to enter the building through the window cut-out. However, given that it was Plaintiff’s third day on the job site, there was no evidence that his employer had advised him of the same. It was undisputed that there were two fully functional safety devices for descending from the platform provided to Plaintiff: a scaffold staircase and a hoist.New York Labor Law § 240(1) imposes strict or absolute liability on general contractors, owners, and their agents whether or not they supervise or control the work (in other words, the duty is nondelegable). Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of New York City, Inc., 1 N.Y.3d 280 (2003). Moreover, the plaintiff's own negligence does not furnish a defense. Id. However, it is still necessary “for the plaintiff to show that the statute was violated and that the violation proximately caused his injury.” Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 N.Y.3d 35, 39 (2004). No liability attaches where plaintiff’s own actions are the sole proximate cause of the accident. Id. Under the so-called “recalcitrant worker” defense, a defendant has no liability: “when plaintiffs: (1) had adequate safety devices available, (2) knew both that the safety devices were available and that [they were] expected to use them, (3) chose for no good reason not to do so, and (4) would not have been injured had they not made that choice." Biac

  3. Elevator Considered “Falling Object” Under New York Labor Law §240(1)

    Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLPJune 18, 2016

    While plaintiff was inspecting the safety, the elevator suddenly descended and pinned plaintiff, causing injuries. The court found that plaintiff was engaged in a repair rather than routine maintenance (which would not have been subject to the strict liability under New York Labor Law 240(1)) because the elevator shoes were not working at the time of the accident and the work plaintiff was performing was unrelated to normal wear and tear. Indeed, because the item at issue did not have a limited lifespan which would require replacement on a periodic basis, the trial court held that it could not be considered routine maintenance.

  4. Objects Falling From Ground Level Can Trigger Liability Under NY Scaffold Law

    K&L Gates LLPMarch 28, 2012

    Wilinski v. 334 East 92ND Housing Dev. Fund Corp. et. al., 18 N.Y.3d 1, 935 N.Y.S.2d 551 (N.Y. 2011)The New York Court of Appeals held that New York Labor Law § 240(1) could apply to injuries caused by a falling object whose base stands at the same level as the injured worker. The Plaintiff was a construction worker who, while in the process of demolishing walls in a vacant building, was injured when two ten-foot poles which rose out of the floor on which he was working fell on him.

  5. In NY, What is a “Elevation-Related Hazard?”

    Pillsbury - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate LawAmy L. PierceMay 5, 2016

    While walking across the top of the rebar grid, Vitale lost his balance, causing his leg to fall through one of the square openings, up to his groin, resulting in his injuries. Vitale alleged causes of action under New York Labor Law § 240(1) and 241(6) premised on an alleged industrial violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)(1)(i) governing “hazardous openings.” According to the Appellate Division, the trial court properly dismissed Vitale’s Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, because the openings of the grid were not of a dimension that would have permitted Vitale’s body to completely fall through, and therefore did not present an elevation-related hazard to which § 240(1) applies.

  6. OSHA Expands Mandatory Reporting Requirements to Encompass Individual Employee Hospitalizations, Amputations, and Eye Loss

    Hodgson Russ LLPJason MarkelSeptember 24, 2014

    Employers with OSHA histories that contain high-hazard violations or violations of a type that could have contributed to the reported incident should be especially wary of an ensuing inspection. Construction employers in New York should be particularly concerned with these changes in reportable cases involving falls from elevated heights or where the adequacy of fall-related safety devices are concerned, especially where New York Labor Law §§ 240, 241, and 200 could serve as a basis for triggering a personal-injury suit and in multi-employer construction worksites. Similarly, manufacturing and construction employers need to be concerned about cases involving amputations, eye losses, and fall-related injuries that could qualify for the “grave injury” exception to New York Workers Compensation Law § 11, thereby allowing the employer to be sued for contribution or indemnification by a different prime defendant, such as another contractor, project owner, or equipment manufacturer.

  7. New York’s Highest Court Reverses Itself on Prior Damages-Limiting Decision

    Wilson Elser LLPDecember 16, 2013

    In 2009, the defendants in the personal injury action were successful in arguing that the plaintiff was precluded from relitigating the length of his disability with respect to lost earnings and compensation for medical expenses. There existed the potential for this decision to be used to limit damages in many high-exposure personal injury cases if there had been a WCB final determination on disability prior to trial. For example, it was hoped that this decision would be helpful in defending New York Labor Law §240(1) cases in which statutorily imposed liability may be almost certain and the plaintiff alleges significant injuries (e.g., a traumatic brain injury, or TBI) yet there was only limited medical treatment with no cognitive therapy or objective evidence (e.g., radiographic films) of brain damage. The exposure presented in such a case can exceed $5 million.

  8. Retailer Liability - NY Court Clarifies Type of Cleaning Governed by "Scaffold Law"

    LeClairRyanOctober 11, 2013

    The presence or absence of any one is not necessarily dispositive if, viewed in totality, the remaining considerations militate in favor of placing the task in one category or the other." In conclusion, while this decision narrows the type of workplace accidents that subject property owners, operators and their contractors to the sharp teeth of NY Labor Law Section 240, such businesses should still protect themselves by way of contractual indemnification provisions and additional insured requirements.

  9. Constructive Notice Not Established by Discussion in Meetings

    K&L Gates LLPApril 22, 2008

    The trial court dismissed Geonie’s claims under New York Labor Law and his negligence claim against the general contractor.The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the trial court, holding that the removed tile did not create an elevation-related hazard as contemplated by New York Labor Law § 240(1). The court also found that the contractor exercised adequate control and supervision over the work because it conducted weekly safety meetings with subcontractors, conducted regular walk-throughs of the area, and was empowered to stop work if any unsafe conditions were present.