In a recent decision, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department reversed a lower Court opinion that granted defendants\u2019 motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff\u2019s Labor Law \u00a7 240(1) claims.\u00a0 The lower Court decision had also denied plaintiff\u2019s motion for summary judgment as to his Labor Law \u00a7 240(1) claims.\u00a0<\/p>\n
In Wolfanger v. Once Again Nut Butter Collective, Inc.<\/em>, 2024 NY Slip Op 01452 (2024), plaintiff alleged he sustained injuries while working on the construction of a warehouse owned by the defendant.\u00a0 The general contractor on the project subcontracted painting work to plaintiff\u2019s employer.\u00a0 While spray-painting at a high elevation in the interior of the subject building, plaintiff experienced dizziness and fell from a boom lift that was emitting noxious diesel fumes.\u00a0 Plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to ensure that the boom lift was properly constructed, placed or operated to give him proper protection for the work.\u00a0 At the conclusion of discovery, all parties moved for summary judgment.\u00a0 In its decision, the Supreme Court, Monroe County found that \u201cplaintiff\u2019s injuries were not caused by an elevation-related risk\u201d and concluded that the defendants provided plaintiff with the necessary safety devices.\u00a0 Further, any fumes emitted by the boom lift were an incidental consequence of its physical placement.<\/p>\n In reviewing the lower Court\u2019s decision, there are a few factual assertions that are relevant:<\/p>\n In its decision, the Fourth Department rejected the lower Court\u2019s findings and their implication on the lower Court\u2019s decision.\u00a0 Citing to Fourth Department precedent, it again held that plaintiff need not demonstrate the precise manner in which the accident happened or that the injuries occurred were foreseeable.\u00a0 It is \u201csufficient that he or she demonstrate that the rise of some injury from defendants\u2019 conduct was foreseeable.\u201d The Fourth Department focused on the undisputed facts that plaintiff fell from the lift while it was raised six to eight feet in the air and plaintiff\u2019s submission that causally related his injuries to the fall from the lift.\u00a0 Further, it was undisputed that plaintiff was using a boom lift that discharged fumes into the factory.\u00a0 Plaintiff thus met his prima facie burden on his motion by establishing that his fall was a \u201cnormal and foreseeable\u201d consequence of the placement of the lift.\u00a0<\/p>\n Defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the hazard of fumes \u201cis of such an extraordinary nature or so attenuated from the statutory violation as to constitute a superseding cause sufficient to relieve them of liability.\u201d\u00a0 Defendants also failed to raise an issue of fact whether plaintiff deliberately unclipped his safety harness, and that this issue, \u201cat best,\u201d presents a question of comparative negligence, which is not a defense to liability under Labor Law \u00a7 240(1).\u00a0<\/p>\n\n