IVOIR DASILVA, et al. v. SUPER P57, LLC, et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction site fall from elevation; worker safety under New York Labor Law § 240(1) [New York's Scaffold Law imposing strict/absolute liability on owners and contractors for elevation-related injuries caused by failure to provide proper safety devices], § 241(6) [imposes a nondelegable duty on owners and contractors to comply with specific Industrial Code safety regulations], and § 200 [codifies the common-law duty to provide a safe place to work].
Granted plaintiffs partial summary judgment on liability under § 240(1); dismissed plaintiffs’ § 241(6), § 200, and common-law negligence claims; denied defendants’ attempt to dismiss § 240(1).
The merits dismissals of the § 241(6) and § 200 claims were modified to be denied as academic (and plaintiffs’ request for § 241(6) liability was also denied as academic), rather than decided on the merits.
Plaintiff’s fall from a plank 3 to 4.5 feet above a metal awning presented a non-de minimis elevation risk; the fall-protection setup lacked adequate tie-off points and did not prevent impact; defendants failed to show deliberate disobedience for a recalcitrant worker defense; the scissor-lift directive argument was unpreserved and, in any event, unsupported as a safe alternative; multiple safety device failures defeated any sole proximate cause defense.
Background
While scraping an elevated building façade, plaintiff stood on an unsecured plank positioned above a metal awning. The plank shifted and tipped, causing him to fall onto the awning below. The tie-off points were not positioned at least two feet above the work level, and the restraint system did not prevent a forceful landing. Defendants argued plaintiff should have tied down the plank with clamps/ropes available in a shanty and should have used a scissor lift; they also suggested plaintiff’s movement on the plank was reckless.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court granted plaintiffs partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) and dismissed plaintiffs’ Labor Law § 241(6), § 200, and common-law negligence claims, while denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the § 240(1) claim.
Appellate Division Reversal
Modified to treat the § 241(6) and § 200 issues as academic in light of plaintiffs’ entitlement to § 240(1) liability, and to treat plaintiffs’ request for § 241(6) liability as academic; otherwise affirmed. The Court held the elevation differential was not de minimis; the safety devices were inadequate and a proximate cause of the accident; no evidence showed deliberate disobedience of a direct order to use tie-downs; the scissor-lift directive argument was unpreserved and, regardless, there was no evidence it would have permitted safe performance; multiple safety shortcomings negated sole proximate cause.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that there is no bright-line minimum height for elevation hazards under § 240(1) and that inadequate fall protection (e.g., lack of proper tie-off points and ineffective restraint) establishes liability. Multiple device failures undercut recalcitrant worker and sole proximate cause defenses. When § 240(1) liability is awarded, related § 241(6) and § 200 claims may be rendered academic.
Even a fall from a few feet can trigger § 240(1) liability when fall protection is inadequate; absent proof of a direct, disobeyed safety order or a safe available alternative, defendants cannot shift fault to the worker, and other statutory and negligence claims may become academic once § 240(1) liability is established.