Solution to Epidemic of “Sudden Shifting” Ladders in New York is “Bolt them To the Floor”
As the immortal Dave Chapelle once said, “modern problems require modern solutions.” In a recent case, the First Department reminds us that ladders can’t suddenly shift if they’re part of the structure, and that the cure for the epidemic of “suddenly shifting” ladders is to bolt everything to the floor.
In Hartigan v. Gilbane Bldg. Co., 2024 NY Slip Op, plaintiff alleged that he was injured as he climbed down from a retracted man lift upon which he had been performing overhead fire-sprinkler work. While holding onto the lift’s affixed metal ladder and attempting to climb down it to exit the man lift, he slipped due to moisture on its metal rungs and fell approximately four to five feet to the ground.
The lower Court, Supreme Court, New York County, held that plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law by noting that plaintiff established he fell from a height, and was not provided the proper equipment as prescribed under Labor Law § 240(1). The lower Court rejected the defendants’ contentions that the height plaintiff fell from was not sufficient, that they were improper Labor Law defendants, and that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the subject incident.
The Appellate Division, First Department unanimously reversed the lower Court’s decision and denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. In its decision, it found that questions of fact existed as to whether plaintiff was provided with “devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection” and cited precedent involving fact patterns where plaintiff fell from fixed ladders.[1]
Further, the First Department noted that plaintiff failed to establish that a “safety device of the kind enumerated in § 240(1) could have prevented his fall” and “[w]hether a device of the sort contemplated by the statute could have prevented plaintiff’s fall presents a question of fact precluding summary judgment”.
The difference between this case and the many others we’ve brought to your attention is that the ladder was affixed to the man lift; and while in other cases plaintiff could claim that the ladder “suddenly shifted”, which is sufficient to establish prima facie entitlement to liability in the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, that argument was factually precluded here. The plaintiff also failed to show how one of the safety devices enumerated in the statute would have prevented the fall.
We note that the defendants did not include the “affixed versus free standing ladder” argument in the underlying motion papers, but every so often the First Department proves merciful to defendants.
The Hartigan 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.
