In New York, to establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must prove (1) that the defendant owed a duty to plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom. If, defendant’s negligence were a substantial factor, it is considered to be a “proximate cause” even though other substantial factors may also have contributed to plaintiffs. In order to establish the third element, proximate cause, the plaintiff must show that defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury. Because a finding of negligence must be based on the breach of a duty, a threshold question in tort cases is whether the alleged tortfeasor owed a duty of care to the injured party. Summary judgment is rarely appropriate in a negligence action because the issue of whether a plaintiff or defendant acted reasonably under the circumstance could rarely be resolved as a matter of law.
If it cannot be determined who the parties are who owed a duty to the plaintiff and what the defendants’ respective roles and responsibilities were, no determination as to negligence can be made based upon the evidentiary submissions and adduced testimonies.
Labor Law §200 provides in pertinent part that “All places to which this chapter applies shall be so constructed, equipped, arranged, operated and conducted as to provide reasonable and adequate protection to the lives, health and safety of all persons employed therein or lawfully frequenting such places…. (Trbaci v AJS Construction Project Management, Inc, et al, 2009 NY Slip Op 50153U; 22 Misc3d 1116A [Supreme Court of New York, Kings County 2009). “New York State Labor Law §200 is merely a codification of the common-law duty placed upon owners and contractors to provide employees with a safe place to work (Kim v Herbert Constr. Co., 275 AD2d 709, 880 NYS2d 227 ). In order to prevail on a claim under Labor law §200, a plaintiff is required to establish that a defendant exercised some supervisory control over the operation (Mendoza v Cornwall Hill Estates, Inc., 199 AD2d 368, 605 NYS2d 308 [2nd Dept 1993]). Labor Law §200 governs general safety in the workplace, imposes upon employers, owners, and contractors the affirmative duty to exercise reasonable care to provide and maintain a safe place to work and is a reiteration of common-law negligence standards. Therefore, a Staten Island party charged with liability must be shown to have notice, actual or constructive, of the unsafe condition and to exercise sufficient control over the work being performed to correct or avoid the unsafe condition (Leon v J&M Pepe Realty Corp. et al, 190 Ad2d 400, 596 NYS2d 380 [1st Dept 1993]).
New York State Labor Law §240. Scaffolding and other devices for use of employees at section (1) provides “[a]ll contractors and owners and their agents, except owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work, in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected for the performance of such labor, scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to a person so employed.”
“New York State Labor Law §240 (1) is applicable to work performed at heights or where work itself involves risks related to differentials in elevation”. Labor Law §240 (1) was enacted to “prevent those types of accidents in which the scaffold, hoist, stay, ladder or other protective device proved inadequate to shield the injured worker from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person, Labor Law §240 is intended to protect workers from gravity-related occurrences stemming from the inadequacy or absence of enumerated safety devices. The duties articulated in §240 are nondelegable, and liability is absolute as to the general contractor or owner when its breach of the statute proximately causes spinal injury.
The injury claimed to have been sustained by the plaintiff did not arise out of the effects of gravity within the meaning of Labor Law §240 and it is not alleged that something fell or that the plaintiff was working on an elevated work height when he fell (see, Auchampaugh v Syracuse University et al, 57 AD3d 1291 [3 rd Dept 2008]. In Masullo etal v City of New York, 253 AD2d 541, 677 NYS2d 162 [2nd Dept 1998], it was determined that falling into a manhole is not one of the gravity-related hazards or perils subject to the safeguards prescribed by Labor law 240(1); to the contrary, it is the type of ordinary and usual peril a worker is commonly exposed to at a construction site. Section 240(1) is applicable to work performed at heights or where the work itself involves risks related to differentials in elevation. It is determined as a matter of law that the cause of action premised upon the violation of Labor Law §240 is not contemplated within the meaning of the statute as although this incident occurred while the plaintiff was walking on the ground at the worksite, there was no gravity related event wherein the plaintiff was working at an elevated height giving rise to application of Labor Law §240 to the facts in this action. It is determined that this is an usual and ordinary danger of a construction site rather than a special elevation-related hazard within the meaning of Labor Law §240.
Accordingly, the cause of action premised upon the defendants’ alleged violation of Labor Law §240(1) is dismissed as a matter of law as asserted against all the defendants.
Stephen Bilkis and Associates can provide you and your loved ones legal assistance together with its New York Injury Lawyers. It has offices within New York Metropolitan area, including Corona, New York.