New York courts apply a broad stroke to Labor Law 240(1) claims whenever there is a hint of an elevation issue.  Recently, the First Department affirmed summary judgment granted to plaintiff in a case involving a fall on a 4′ ramp.

In Aramburu v. Midtown W.B., LLC, the plaintiff and his coworker were rolling a heavy reel of wire down a 4′ ramp when he was injured.  While walking backwards down the ramp in front of the rolling reel, the plaintiff slipped and fell on a patch of ice. His co-worker, who had been guiding the reel from behind, lost control over it and it rolled over the plaintiff’s neck and shoulder.

The court skirted any discussion of elevation and focused on the fact that the types of safety equipment mentioned in the statute could have prevented the fall.  For example, instead of using the men to secure the reel as it rolled down the ramp, the workers should have been provided with devices such as pulleys or ropes.  The court specifically found that the fact that the plaintiff slipped on ice did not preclude him from getting summary judgment on his 240 claim because the plaintiff’s injuries were also proximately caused by the lack of these types of safety devices.

Although, the defendant-owner moved, in the lower court, to dismiss the plaintiff’s Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence claims, arguing that it did not have notice of the ice on the ramp.  The court found sufficient issues of fact as to whether the owner, who was provided copies of the safety meeting minutes which discussed ongoing ice conditions, was on notice of the dangerous condition prior to the accident.

However, the First Department found that the property owner might have a viable contractual indemnification claim against the plaintiff’s employer.  Based on the contract, the employer agreed to indemnify the owner for all injuries arising out of its work.  Under the circumstances of the case, the court granted the  owner’s motion for indemnification – but only conditionally finding issues of fact as to the owner’s potential negligence in maintaining the ramp.  Otherwise, the employer could not argue that it was not negligent given the Labor Law 240(1) violations.

Thanks to Georgia Stagias Coats for her contribution.

For more information, contact Denise Fontana Ricci at .