New York Court Examines Scope of Scaffold Law in 2 Injury Cases

The New York Court of Appeals, the states highest court, ruled on two injury cases on April 2, examining whether the injuries in those cases fit within the scope of the states Labor Law 240, popularly known as the Scaffold Law. Under New Yorks Scaffold Law, property owners and contractors are liable for most gravity-related injuries to workers on construction sites.

One case involved a construction worker who was injured while installing insulation in the ceilings of a newly constructed apartment building development in the Village of Fredonia, New York, in 2006.

The court documents showed that the worker wore stilts that elevated his feet above the concrete floor in order for him to reach the 9- to 10-foot high ceiling. According to the plaintiff, the accident occurred when he stepped forward with one foot, while swinging a hammer tacker above his head to affix insulation between the ceiling rafters, and slipped on a thin patch of ice.

The testimony in the record varies with respect to how high the stilts elevated the plaintiff off the floor, according to court documents. The plaintiff claimed that the stilts raised him somewhere between 3 and 5 feet off the ground, while the plaintiffs supervisor testified that the stilts elevated the plaintiff by only about 18 inches. The plaintiffs coworker, who was performing the same task on stilts in the room with plaintiff, asserted that both he and the plaintiff had their stilts set at the lowest setting, which he stated was approximately 3 feet.

The testimony also differed on the circumstances leading up to the accident. The plaintiff testified at his deposition that, prior to falling, he was aware that ice and water had accumulated on parts of the floor, and he claimed to have so informed his supervisor. The plaintiff asserted that his supervisor instructed him to complete the installation despite the presence of ice. The supervisor, by contrast, testified that he not the plaintiff first noticed the ice, and that he directed the plaintiff not to insulate the ceiling above the icy area.

The high court ruled that the accident didnt fall within the scope of the Scaffold Law. The court also stated that regardless of the type of safety device involved, liability arises under Labor Law 240 (1) only where the plaintiffs injuries are the direct consequence of an elevation-related risk, and not a separate and ordinary tripping or slipping hazard.

Here, plaintiffs accident was plainly caused by a separate hazard ice unrelated to any elevation risk, the court stated. Plaintiff testified that stilts were the appropriate device for the type of work that he was undertaking, given the height of this particular ceiling. Plaintiffs testimony further established that it was the ice not a deficiency or inadequacy of the stilts that caused his fall.

Commenting on stilts, the court further stated that, unlike ladders, stilts are not placed in a stationary position and expected to remain still to ensure their proper and safe use. Rather, stilts are intended to function as extensions of, and move with, the worker during performance of the designated task.

Thus, the imposition of liability under section 240 (1) where a ladder slips due to an unsafe condition on the floor in the area where it is placed is distinguishable from the circumstances of plaintiffs accident here, the court stated. In sum, plaintiff cannot recover under Labor Law 240 (1) because his injuries resulted from a slip on ice, which under these facts is a separate hazard unrelated to the elevation risk that necessitated the provision of a safety device in the first instance.

However, in a dissenting opinion, Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman stated that he believes stilts placed on ice create the same elevation-related risk as do ladders and that he would hold that Labor Law 240 (1) applies in this case.

Read more from the original source:
New York Court Examines Scope of Scaffold Law in 2 Injury Cases