As we reported back in October 2014, the USDC for the Northern District of New York decision in Diaz v. Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. limited the application of Labor Law 240 liability expanded by Runner v. New York Stock Exch., Inc., 13 N.Y.3d 599 (2009). In Runner, the plaintiff, along with several co-workers, was injured while attempting to move an 800-pound reel of wire down four stairs. The plaintiff, who was serving as a counterweight to a makeshift pulley was injured when he was dragged into the pulley mechanism by the reel’s rapid descent.
In Diaz, the plaintiff, an HVAC worker, was on a ladder installing a ventilation door/cap on a branch of ductwork. Plaintiff ascended the ladder and then hoisted the door up from the floor to the ventilation duct using rope. The Federal Court, applying New York Law refused to extend Runner because plaintiff was injured during the process of lifting an inert weight. As such, Diaz’s injury did not directly flow from the force of gravity to an object or person within the meaning of Runner.
Recently, the First Department applied Runner in their analysis of Serowik v Leardon Boiler Works. Defendant owner, 125 East 84th Street Corporation hired defendant Leardon Boiler Works, Inc., to install a new boiler system at the premises. Plaintiff’s employer, GDT, was subcontracted by Leardon, to do the job. Plaintiff was injured while helping to lower a tank weighing at least four to five hundred pounds down a flight of stairs. The tank was attached to one end of a rope, and plaintiff and four others held the rope near the other end, to act as counterweights to slow the tank’s descent. When the tank was pushed over the edge of the top step, plaintiff was pulled forward into a pipe around which the rope was wrapped. In the process, his index finger and part of his middle finger were severed resulting in what is considered a grave injury pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 11.
In affirming a determination in Bronx County that plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment under Labor Law 240(1), the First Department stated that plaintiff’s injury, as in Runner, was due to the application of gravity to the tank. The court found that the elevation differential was not de minimis given the weight of the tank, which generated sufficient force to pull the plaintiff into the pipe. The court discounted the defendants’ argument that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the fact that the plaintiff had wrapped the rope around his arm. Rather, the court found that plaintiff was not provided with adequate safety devices. In addition, plaintiff’s work was a necessary step in the installation of the tank in the building, constituting alterations or other activities protected by Labor Law § 240(1).
While in some contexts, courts have limited the application of Runner, there is no doubt that this landmark decision will continue to apply to factual scenarios involving injury to persons during the lowering of heavy objects resulting in alterations to the premises.
Thanks to Vincent Terrasi for his contribution.