Duct Lift Slips From Ramp Short Distance – Still Sufficient for Elevation-Related Risk
In a recent decision, the Appellate Division, Second Department modified a Supreme Court, Kings County decision that granted the portions of defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) and denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability as to those cases of action.
In Davila v. City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 05433, plaintiff alleges he sustained injuries while working on a construction site in Brooklyn. According to plaintiff, he was injured when a 400-pound duct lift toppled from an unsteady ramp and hit him. Notably, the parties’ submissions indicate that the elevation differential measured only 10 to 12 inches.
The Appellate Division, Second Department held that the lower Court should have denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiff’s cross-motion. The Second Department held that” in addressing falling object cases, the relevant inquiry is whether the harm flows directly from the application of the force of gravity on the object.” Plaintiff must show that the “object fell because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute.”
In the instant matter, though the defendants submitted evidence establishing that the alleged elevation differential only measured 10 to 12 inches, the heavy weight of the duct lift and the amount of force it was capable of generating leads to the conclusion that the elevation differential was not de minimis. Because plaintiff submitted evidence that he suffered harm that flowed directly from the application of the force of gravity to the duct lift, he established his prima facie burden, entitling him to summary judgment as to his Labor Law § 240(1) claim.
The Second Department then held affirmed the lower Court decision regarding branches of the defendants’ motion with regard to Labor Law § 241(6) as predicated on industrial Code 23-1.22(b)(“Ladders and ladderways”) because they demonstrated that no specific safety standard under that code was violated.
Falling objects in the Labor Law § 240(1) context also has a physics component to it. If the object is incredibly heavy, but moves only a short distance due to gravity, it is still considered an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240(1).
The Davila 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.