For years liability under Section Labor Law 240 has continued to expand. Runner v. New York Stock Exch., Inc., probably one of the most oft cited Labor Law cases,has played a large role in this expansion.  However, the USDC for the Northern District of New York’s decision in Diaz v. Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. may help to put an end to Runner’s expansion of Labor Law 240 liability.

In Runner, the plaintiff along with several co-workers was attempting to move an 800-pound reel of wire down four stairs.  One end of a rope was tied around the reel and the other end was looped around a metal bar placed against a doorframe.  The plaintiff, who was serving as a counterweight to this makeshift pulley was injured when he was dragged into the pulley mechanism and towards the metal bar by the reel’s rapid descent.

In Diaz, the plaintiff, an HVAC worker, was on a ladder approximately sixteen feet off the ground installing a ventilation door/cap on a branch of ductwork.  According to the plaintiff, he used a vise grip/clamp to attach the rope to the door, went up the ladder and then hoisted the door up from the floor to the ventilation duct using the rope. He also confirmed that nothing fell on him either while he was on the ladder or the ground. Diaz contended that his injuries, like the injuries sustained by the plaintiff in Runner, were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a significant elevation differential.

Applying New York law, the federal court construed Runner quite differently, providing defense attorneys with a possible defense to utilize when faced with a non-gravity related Labor Law case.  In so doing, the court noted that because Runner cannot properly be read to eliminate the element of a fall or descent, it does not support recovery under section 240(1) for an injury occurring when a worker attempts to lift an inert weight. The Court concluded that the plaintiff’s claim was not aided by the fact that he had raised the duct door from a lower level to an elevated height and because there was no fall or descent, his injury did not directly flow from the force of gravity to an object or person within the meaning of Runner and other New York high court authority.

Accordingly, this case provides authority for defendants to oppose or move for summary judgment in an alleged falling object case where the object neither falls nor descends.

Thanks to Alicia Sklan for her contribution to this post.  For more information, please contact Nicole Y. Brown at .