William O'Donnell v Rocklyn Ecclesiastical Corp., et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction site safety—unguarded, unshored trench collapse causing a fall; elevation-related risk and hazardous opening protections.
Supreme Court, Kings County, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) and on Labor Law § 241(6) predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)(1).
The denial of summary judgment; the Appellate Division reversed and granted plaintiff summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6) as predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)(1).
Plaintiff’s testimony and photographs established the trench was approximately 10 feet deep, unshored, and lacked covers, guardrails, or barricades, violating Labor Law § 240(1) [imposes upon owners and general contractors a nondelegable duty to provide safety devices necessary to protect workers from risks inherent in elevated work sites] and 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)(1) [requires holes or hazardous openings into which a person may step or fall to be guarded by a fastened substantial cover or a safety railing]; defendants failed to raise a triable issue or show sole proximate cause. Plaintiff’s wearing sneakers was, at most, comparative negligence, which is not a defense to § 240(1).
Background
On July 25, 2018, at a Brooklyn school construction site, plaintiff William O’Donnell was directed to retrieve lumber located next to a trench about 10 feet deep. The trench was unshored and lacked planking, barricades, guardrails, or covers. While near the trench, the ground caved in and he fell, sustaining injuries. He sued the site’s owners/lessees/controllers and the general contractor for violations of Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6) (based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)(1)). Plaintiff supported his motion with deposition and General Municipal Law § 50-h testimony and photographs showing the unguarded condition.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) and the § 241(6) claim premised on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)(1).
Appellate Division Reversal
Reversed on the law, with costs. The Appellate Division granted plaintiff summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6) insofar as predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)(1). The court held plaintiff made a prima facie showing that defendants failed to provide adequate safety devices and required guarding for a hazardous opening, proximately causing his injuries, and defendants failed to raise triable issues or establish sole proximate cause.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that an unguarded, deep trench is both an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240(1) [nondelegable duty to provide necessary safety devices] and a hazardous opening under 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)(1) [must be guarded by a fastened substantial cover or a safety railing], supporting summary judgment where testimony and photographs show the absence of protections. Comparative negligence (e.g., footwear) is not a defense to § 240(1), and a sole proximate cause defense requires more than speculative assertions.
Owners and general contractors face strict liability when workers are exposed to unguarded, deep trenches; lack of covers/guardrails violates Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), and a worker’s comparative negligence will not defeat § 240(1) liability.