Welding Clamp Sets Out on Adventure Through Construction Site to Strike Plaintiff with the Help of Gravity
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court, New York County granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to his Labor Law § 240(1) claim, and, as a result, denied the portions of plaintiff’s motion as to § 241(6) as academic.
In Garcia v. 100 Church Fee Owner LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 32185(U), plaintiff was employed by the third-party defendant and was working at a construction site where he was instructed to perform demolition work. On the date of the subject incident, plaintiff was tasked with taking part in a wall demolition, demolishing a doorframe, and putting together a scaffold. This demolition to which plaintiff was assigned took place in the basement, and the scaffold assembly took place near the bottom of an elevator shaft. The decision notes that there was no ceiling where the scaffold assembly was taking place and that plaintiff was standing in the elevator shaft during the incident. On the date of the incident, a metal object, later determined to be a welding clamp, fell from the 8th floor, bounced off of the 2nd floor, entering the elevator shaft, where it ultimately struck plaintiff.
Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on his § 240(1) claim against the owner, arguing that the welding clamp that struck him was improperly secured, fell through a hole and struck him, which is a violation of § 240(1). In opposition, the defendant argued that the welding clamp that struck plaintiff was not required to be secured, and therefore, the elevation-related hazard here was unforeseeable. In reply, plaintiff contended that where there is an accidental dropping of a building material or tool which strikes a worker due to insufficient overhead protection, there is a prima facie Labor Law § 240(1) violation, and there is no need to establish foreseeability to meet his prima facie burden.
The Supreme Court, New York County granted plaintiff’s motion, holding that plaintiff met his prima facie burden by establishing that he was engaged in demolition work when the welding clamp fell from the eighth floor, through a hole that was unsecured, and struck plaintiff. In its decision, the Supreme Court cited recent First Department precedent, specifically the recently decided Torres-Quito decision, which established that the risk to be guarded against under § 240(1) is the “unchecked or insufficiently checked descent of the falling object” and, contrary to defendant’s assertion, plaintiff is not required to show that the object in question was being hoisted or secured when it fell. The undisputed facts and “plethora of precedent” established a Labor Law § 240(1) violation, entitling plaintiff to summary judgment.
The Garcia decision can be found here.
The Torres-Quito 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.
