New York Court of Appeals Further Limits Labor Law ยง240(1): Flatbed Trucks are Not Height-Related Risks
April, 2005
In a continuing effort to clarify the boundaries of New York Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), the Court of Appeals recently held that injuries incurred by workers while working on or descending a flatbed truck were not performing the type of occupational hazard and height related risk against which these statutes were meant to protect. Toefer v. Long Island Railroad & Marvin v. Korean Air, 4 N.Y.3d 399, 2005 WL 756604 (2005).
Facts
Toefer v. L.I.R.R., et al.,
In Toefer, the plaintiff was injured when a wood lever used to remove large steel beams from a flatbed truck inexplicably struck him on the head, throwing him backwards over the side of the truck, four to five feet to the ground below. As a result of the incident, plaintiff became a paraplegic.
Both plaintiff and defendant/contractor moved for summary judgment. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, except those based on Labor Law §240(1). The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified to the extent that it dismissed the Labor Law §240(1) claim as well.
Marvin v. Korean Air, Inc., et al.,
In the companion case, Marvin, plaintiff was working for a siding subcontractor at Kennedy Airport. Plaintiff was cutting steel straps used to secure paneling material brought to the construction site on a flatbed truck. Since plaintiff had not been provided with a ladder, he climbed up on the truck to cut the straps. While attempting to step off the truck, plaintiff’s foot became tangled in his safety harness and he fell. Plaintiff sustained a broken ankle as a result of the fall.
After the trial court dismissed all of plaintiff’s claims, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the decision.
Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals considered the companion cases and Affirmed both Appellate Division decisions, holding that the subject incidents were not the type of height-related occupational hazards against which the statute was meant to protect. Plaintiff in the Toefer case appealed solely on the §240(1) claim while the Plaintiff in Marvin appealed based on §§ 240(1) and 241(6).
Analysis
In recent years, the Court of Appeals has attempted to limit the scope of Labor Law §240(1). While the purpose of the statute was to place responsibility for a worker’s safety squarely on owners and contractors, such responsibility, the Court has held, should only be assessed when there is an elevated risk that falls into one of two distinct categories. The two types of cases have been commonly referred to as “falling worker” cases and “falling object” cases. More recently, the Court has attempted to set boundaries on this strict liability statute and has held that when a plaintiff’s injuries come as a result of an ordinary construction site danger, as opposed to an “extraordinary elevation risk”, the plaintiff cannot recover under the statute.
The Court of Appeals concluded that the companion cases of Toefer and Marvin did not present “the kind of elevation-risk that the statute contemplates.” Toefer, 4 N.Y.3d at 408. The Court explained that the plaintiff in Toefer was working on a surface that was not only large and stable, but a mere four feet from the ground. Further, none of the safety devices referenced in Section §240(1) would have prevented plaintiff’s accident.
Similarly, the plaintiff in Marvin descended only four to five feet from the flatbed truck to the ground. The Court stated that the “safety devices of the kind listed in the statute are normally associated with more dangerous activity than a worker’s getting down from the back of a truck.” Id. at 408-409.
The Court of Appeals further analyzed the applicability of Labor Law §241(6). With regard to that section of the statute, the Court reiterated its prior jurisprudence, which held that this section imposes a “nondelegable duty on owners and contractors to comply with specific detailed rules.” Id. at 409. In laymen’s terms, this section holds owners and contractors vicariously liable for others when an industrial code section which has previously been found sufficiently particular has been violated. Since the plaintiff was unable to allege a violation of a sufficiently particular statute, there was no validity to the claim under Labor Law Section §241(6), and its dismissal was upheld.
Learning Point:
In the Toefer/Marvin decision, the Court of Appeals attempted to further clarify the limits of Labor Law §240(1). This is significant in that it is a strict liability statute and therefore the broader its terms, the more likely a plaintiff will be availed of its protection. It appears that the Court of Appeals has essentially imposed a height based analysis for cases involving a descent from a “flatbed trailer or similar surface” finding that four or five feet does not trigger the protections invoked by Labor Law Section §240(1). It is expected that this decision will spur further litigation with regard to what is considered a “similar surface” and what height beyond four or five feet will fall within the same analysis. •
Back to New York CM Report of Recent Decisions (2005v2) 2005 Volume 2 Table of Contents
