Dropped Objects Fall Squarely into Labor Law Protections
In a recent decision, the Appellate Division, First Department unanimously reversed a Supreme Court, New York County decision that denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to his Labor Law § 240(1) claim.
In Fromel v. W2005/Hines West Fifty-Third Realty, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 05828, plaintiff alleged he was employed as an electrician at a construction site when he was injured after being struck by a support beam, approximately 4×4 and 10-feet long, when it was accidentally dropped through a large opening by a co-worker who was carrying them on the floor above where plaintiff was working.
In its decision, the Supreme Court, New York County held that the plaintiff failed to meet his prima facie burden on summary judgment. According to the lower Court, plaintiff failed to show that the beams were objects that required securing for the undertaking, or that any safety device was required to transport the beams, or that the lack of a necessary hoisting or securing device caused his co-worker to lose his grip on the beam that fell. The possibility of an object slipping from a coworker’s arms or being dropped by another worker is a general hazard of a construction workplace, and not subject to Labor Law § 240(1), the lower Court held.
The Appellate Division, First Department disagreed, holding that plaintiff established his prima facie burden of entitlement to summary judgment as to his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action by showing that the support beam was a load that required securing for the purposes of the undertaking. The First Department then cited to long-standing precedent involving objects falling from a height where a lack of a safety device to protect from falling objects that were required to be secured proximately caused the subject incident. It was irrelevant that plaintiff did not actually witness where the beams came from when the fell, as he “is not required to show the exact circumstances under which the object fell” provided he can demonstrate that the lack of a protective device called for under Labor Law § 240(1) proximately caused the injuries.
A seemingly straightforward case that threads a fine needle upon further examination. The lower Court cited to case law in the First Department regarding common place hazards at in the workplace not being covered under Labor Law § 240(1), which the First Department then unanimously reversed. The reversal by the First Department cites to case law which makes it hard to imagine a scenario where an object dropped by a co-worker does not fall within the purview of § 240(1), effectively nullifying the “general hazard of a construction workplace” line of case law.
The Fromel 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.