When construction workers experience gravity related accidents such as a fall from a height or by being struck by a falling object, Labor Law §240 is often triggered.  However, not all activities involving a fall or falling objects triggers Section 240 liability.

In De Jesus v. Metro-North, plaintiff was hired to cut down trees that hurricane Sandy had blown on to the Metro North tracks.  Plaintiff was using a saw to cut down trees that had fallen on the catenaries, the steel poles that hold up overhead wires.  Plaintiff had cut 75% of the way through a tree trunk when the pressure of the wires propelled the tree up and towards him striking his left leg.

In his motion for summary judgment, plaintiff argued that his accident was the direct result of a gravity related hazard.  He claimed that the weight of the tree pushed down the cables, causing an elastic reaction, propelling the tree back at him once the force of the tree’s weight was weakened by his cutting of the trunk. Defendant cross-moved for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff’s work fell outside the ambit of §240 since a tree was neither a structure nor a building.  Defendant also argued that since plaintiff and the tree which he was removing were at ground level, §240 did not apply.

The court dismissed the Labor Law 240 claim noting that the tree upon which the plaintiff was working was not a building or structure.  In addition, the court denied the motion because, “Labor Law §240(1) related to ‘special hazards’ presenting ‘elevation-related risks’ . . . and [l]iability may only be imposed where the plaintiff’s injuries are the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential.”

Although a fall from a height or being struck by a falling object will often trigger the implications of Labor Law 240, it is important to pay attention to the details surrounding the accident.  If an individual is struck by an object but it is not actually “gravity-related,” or he is not working on a building or structure, it may present an opportunity to have the §240 claims dismissed.

Thanks to Jeremy Seeman for his contribution to this post.