It is well known that when a scaffold tips or collapses, Labor Law liability is almost always a foregone conclusion. But what happens when the plaintiff is not on the falling scaffold?
In Wright v Ellsworth Partners LLC, plaintiff was standing on the floor watching his co-workers dismantling and stacking scaffolding against a wall when portions of it fell on to him. Plaintiff was not participating in the process of dismantling the scaffolding. The parties moved for summary judgment.
With respect to the Labor Law 240 claim, the court found that though plaintiff’s injuries flowed directly from the force of the falling stacked scaffolding, his injuries were not the result of his exposure to the risk of gravity while working with materials that were above the surface on which he was standing. The risk of this injury did not arise from a physically significant elevation differential but rather occurred where there was no height differential at all. The court noted that “[t]he special hazards’ … do not encompass any and all perils that may be connected in some tangential way with the effects of gravity. Rather, the special hazards’ referred to are limited to such specific gravity-related accidents as falling from a height or being struck by a falling object that was improperly hoisted or inadequately secured.”
With respect to the Labor Law 241(6) claim, the plaintiff relied on a rule that required barricades in areas where people were exposed to falling materials, “wherein employees are not required to work or pass.” The court found that though plaintiff was not participating in dismantling the scaffold, his co-workers were required to work in that area, thus no barricades were required. The court also dismissed the Labor Law 200 claim on the basis that the owner and general contractor did not direct or control plaintiff’s work.
Many courts have interpreted the Labor Law (and specifically Section 240) very liberally. Indeed, in many cases where there is no height differential, courts have added substantial weight as a factor to establish Labor Law liability. While this court rejected that notion here, it remains to be seen whether this decision holds up on appeal.
Thanks to Caroline Freilich for her contribution to this post.