First Department Holds Finds in Favor of Plaintiff Because Defendants Lack of Omniscience
“Foreseeability” often comes up in the context of Labor Law § 240(1), in that a plaintiff in a case involving the collapsing of a permanent structure must establish that the collapse was “foreseeable.” In the following case, the Appellate Division, First Departments brings us along on a deep dive into foreseeability and its context within § 240(1).
In Ciaurella v. Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y., 2024 NY Slip Op 03455, plaintiff was employed as a union shop steward and laborer for a project that involved renovation of the 10th and 11th floors of a building in Manhattan. The project involved the complete demolition of the two subject floors, which was performed by a demolition company prior to plaintiff’s company beginning renovation work at the subject location. After plaintiff’s company appeared at the site to begin renovation work, and after the demolition work had been completed.
The demolition work involved removal of air conditioning units, ducts, and other large mechanical equipment, resulting in numerous exposed holes where this equipment was previously located. Plaintiff was tasked with roping off a particular space that was elevated, requiring the use of a ladder to access the space. As plaintiff walked along the space’s floor to string up caution tape and orange netting to cordon off the area, he stepped on the floor with his right foot, and a 12-inch by 12-inch square section of the floor collapsed from underneath him. His leg fell through the hole, but plaintiff caught himself with his arms, preventing him from falling from the 11th floor to the 10th floor. Deposition testimony of the site manager established that the collapsed area was a poorly constructed “patch” that had been installed at an unknown time, by an unknown entity, prior plaintiff’s company’s work beginning at the subject location.
In its decision, the First Department disagreed with the Supreme Court, Bronx County decision that denied plaintiff’s motion as to his Labor Law § 240(1) claim. Plaintiff must “establish that (1) the task required the plaintiff to work at an elevation, (2) the plaintiff was exposed to the effects of gravity at that elevation and fell as a direct result of the force of gravity, and (3) the protective devices envisioned by the statute” were designed to prevent the hazard that caused the fall. The First Department found that plaintiff met all three of these elements because he was working approximately 8 feet above the floor, and was thus exposed to the effects of gravity. Also, “harnesses and safety lines” attached to a safe structure, with which plaintiff was not provided, are the type of safety devices envisioned by § 240(1) to prevent a worker from falling through a collapsing floor.
In opposition, defendants argued that no liability can attach because the accident was the result of an unforeseeable collapse of a permanent structure. The First Department disagreed, citing longstanding preceded that “plaintiff in a case involving the collapse of a permanent structure must establish that the collapse was foreseeable, not in a strict negligence sense, but in the sense of the foreseeability of plaintiff’s exposure to an elevation-related risk.” To establish this foreseeability, plaintiff “need not demonstrate that the precise manner in which the accident happened, or that the injuries occurred, was foreseeable; it is sufficient for plaintiff to demonstrate that the risk of some injury from defendant’s conduct was foreseeable. Clarifying, the First Department noted that plaintiff does not need to establish the exact foreseeability of the accident and the injury but must simply demonstrate that it was foreseeable that the task he was performing “exposed him to an elevation-risk.” (emphasis as in original).
The First Department noted that not only was the accident foreseeable in this case, but was actually foreseen, due to the fact that a project manager on the site testified that prior to plaintiff’s accident he expressed concerns to the site manager regarding the hazard posed by the holes in the space’s floor, and requested that the holes be fenced off to prevent anyone from falling through.
A note here before we conclude – it is difficult to imagine a scenario where foreseeability in the permanent structure context is not automatically met by the very fact that if plaintiff is elevated, he may be exposed to an elevation-risk, of falling.
The Ciaurella decision can be found here.
For additional information, contact Philip D. Priore, Esq. and/or Michael J. Shields, Esq.
This article was prepared by McCormick & Priore, P.C. to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is in no way intended to provide legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of McCormick & Priore, P.C.
