It is well settled that a party cannot rely on speculation in order to defeat a motion for summary judgment. In Ward v. Urban Horizons II Development Fund Corporation, the trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240(1). The plaintiff argued that, while standing on an A-frame ladder, he attempted to drill a hole through an I-beam in preparation for the installation of exterior lighting when the drill bit became stuck. He lost control of the drill and fell backward off the ladder onto the floor.
The plaintiff’s co-worker testified that he did not witness the accident as he was looking at “girls … outside the window.” The defendants argued that the testimony of this co-worker that he heard neither the plaintiff nor the drill fall to the floor created an issue of fact. However, the court noted the co-worker also testified that plaintiff was in fact standing on the ladder, that he was using a drill, and that the sound of the drill suddenly stopped. When the co-worker turned around he saw plaintiff on the floor with the drill some distance from him. The testimony on whole was sufficient to support plaintiff’s motion, and the court held that the Defendants’ arguments concerning the inferences a jury could draw from the coworker’s testimony constituted nothing more than impermissible speculation insufficient to defeat summary judgment.
Thanks to Johan Obregon for his contribution.