Palacios v. McEvoy
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction site safety—unguarded trench; applicability of New York Labor Law § 240(1) [intended to protect workers from gravity-related occurrences by requiring enumerated safety devices] and Labor Law § 241(6) [requires contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and to comply with Department of Labor (DOL) safety regulations].
Granted summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims against the general contractor, Farrell Building Company, Inc.
The dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claim against Farrell was reversed (denied summary judgment); the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim was affirmed.
A trench large enough for a car to fall into qualifies as a hazardous opening under New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) § 23-1.7(b)(1) [every hazardous opening into which a person may step or fall must be guarded by a secured substantial cover or a safety railing]. Defendants failed to show the regulation was inapplicable and did not eliminate triable issues on proximate cause; thus summary judgment should have been denied under Winegrad. By contrast, the vehicle-backup incident did not involve a risk that the enumerated devices in § 240(1) would guard against.
Background
Jose Leon Palacios was injured at a new-home construction site when he reversed his personal vehicle into an unguarded trench. He and his wife (derivative claim) sued the property owners, Robert and Sabrina McEvoy, and the general contractor, Farrell Building Company, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing those statutory claims against Farrell.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted defendants’ motion, dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6) causes of action against Farrell.
Appellate Division Reversal
Modified the order by denying summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241(6) claim against Farrell. The court held that 12 NYCRR § 23-1.7(b)(1) [hazardous openings must be guarded] is specific and applicable because the trench qualified as a hazardous opening; defendants failed to establish inapplicability or eliminate issues of proximate cause, so denial was required regardless of plaintiffs’ opposition. The court affirmed dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim because the accident did not involve a gravity-related risk remediable by enumerated safety devices.
Legal Significance
Clarifies that trenches large enough to engulf a person—or even a vehicle—can constitute hazardous openings under 12 NYCRR § 23-1.7(b)(1), supporting Labor Law § 241(6) liability at the summary judgment stage when defendants cannot negate applicability or causation. Reaffirms the narrow scope of Labor Law § 240(1) to gravity-related hazards requiring enumerated devices and the Winegrad rule that a movant’s failure to make a prima facie showing necessitates denial of summary judgment regardless of the opponent’s papers.
A contractor cannot secure summary judgment against a Labor Law § 241(6) claim where an unguarded trench fits 12 NYCRR § 23-1.7(b)(1)’s hazardous-opening requirement and factual issues remain; however, accidents involving a vehicle backing into a trench do not trigger Labor Law § 240(1)’s elevation-related protections.