Perri and Popadiuk Defeat Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Motion Premised On New York State Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6) in Construction Accident Case

New York Partners Carl Perri and Gregory Popadiuk defended the interests of the Owner, General Contractor and Developer of an 8-story mixed used building being constructed. Plaintiff was a Laborer who alleged that she suffered personal injuries while sweeping on a staircase between the fifth and sixth floors of the building when she was struck on her head and the back of her neck by a piece of a wooden 2 x 4 that fell from above. Plaintiff asserted causes of action and filed a motion for summary judgment based on violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6).

Labor Law § 240(1) is known as a plaintiff-oriented or plaintiff-friendly statute and imposes absolute liability on owners and contractors or their agents when they fail to protect workers employed on a construction site from injuries proximately caused by risks associated with falling from a height or those associated with falling objects. However, we defeated Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1), arguing that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the object that allegedly struck her was being hoisted or secured or required securing for the undertaking. Plaintiff admitted that she did not see the 2 x 4 before it struck her, did not know where it came from and did not know what it was being used for.

Under Labor Law § 241(6), an owner, general contractor or their agent may be held vicariously liable for injuries to a plaintiff where the plaintiff establishes that the accident was proximately caused by a violation of an Industrial Code section stating a specific positive command that is applicable to the facts. Here, we obtained summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) claims premised on 10 of 11 Industrial Code provisions relied upon by Plaintiff arguing primarily that these did not state specific standards or were inapplicable to the facts. Regarding the one other Industrial Code provision requiring protections against overhead hazards, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on that basis was denied because we argued that there was a lack of any evidence to suggest that the area where Plaintiff’s accident occurred was normally exposed to falling objects.