In Molloy v. Long Is. R.R., the plaintiff, a brakeman on a locomotive that traveled back and forth in a tunnel under construction as part of the East Side Access Project was injured when he slipped and fell on the locomotive’s foothold as he was exiting the cab.  Plaintiff sued the Long Island Railroad, a subsidiary of the MTA, the owners of the East Side Access project and its tunnels as well as various construction management consultants hired by the MTA alleging violations of the Labor Law and common law negligence.  Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 claim and defendants cross-moved for summary judgment seeking to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety.

The court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendants cross-motion with respect to plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) and 200 claims.  With respect to Labor Law 240(1), the Court held that the risk of exiting the cab of the locomotive–a construction vehicle–is not the type of elevation-related hazard contemplated by Labor Law 240 and that the presence of a lifeline or similar safety device would not have prevented plaintiff’s accident.

The court also dismissed plaintiff’s Labor Law 200 claim since the defendants established that they did not control or supervise plaintiff’s work and this case involved the means and methods of plaintiff’s work (as opposed to a dangerous or defective condition inherent in the tunnel where plaintiff was working).

This case shows that not every accident that occurs at a construction site will be subject to Labor Law applicability.

Thanks to Alicia Sklan for her contribution to this post.