Valarezo v. HP Jamsta Housing Development Fund Company Inc.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction workplace safety; falling-object injury during the hoisting of a steel bar with a drilling/excavation machine under New York Labor Law § 240(1) [also known as the Scaffold Law; imposes liability on owners and contractors for elevation-related hazards when proper safety devices are not provided or fail].
The trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) and granted defendants summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 [codifies the common-law duty of owners and contractors to provide a safe workplace] and common-law negligence claims.
The denial of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) was reversed; the remainder of the order was otherwise affirmed, rendering the § 200 and negligence issues academic.
The steel bar was unsecured during hoisting and fell, striking plaintiff; the hoisting equipment failed to prevent the fall. Plaintiff’s unrebutted testimony established a prima facie § 240(1) violation, and he was not required to identify a specific safety device or observe the precise moment the object began to fall. Defendants raised no triable issue of fact.
Background
Plaintiff and coworkers were making bases for cement columns, using a drilling/excavation machine to remove steel bars that had been drilled into the ground. The practice was to tie a fabric sling to the bar’s top, insert a hook into the sling, and have the machine lift the bar out. As the last bar was being removed, it fell and struck plaintiff. Plaintiff testified the bar stood vertically on the drilling machine and was not secured before the machine moved it; he did not see the exact moment it began to fall and was unsure whether a sling was attached at that instant.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court, New York County (Lyle E. Frank, J.) on or about May 1, 2023, denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) and granted defendants’ motion dismissing the Labor Law § 200 [codifies the common-law duty of owners and contractors to provide a safe workplace] and common-law negligence claims.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified, granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1), and otherwise affirmed. The court held that plaintiff’s unrebutted testimony showed the bar was unsecured while being hoisted and that the hoisting equipment failed to prevent the bar from falling. Plaintiffs were not required to prove the exact manner of the fall or identify a particular safety device that should have been used. Defendants failed to raise a triable issue. Given the grant on § 240(1) liability, the § 200 and common-law negligence arguments were academic.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that a falling-object injury arising from an unsecured load during hoisting is within the protective scope of Labor Law § 240(1); a plaintiff need not witness the precise mechanics of the fall or identify the specific missing or inadequate safety device when the hoisting apparatus fails to prevent the object from falling. Unrebutted worker testimony can establish a prima facie case, shifting the burden to defendants to raise a triable issue.
When an object being hoisted is not adequately secured and falls, striking a worker, Labor Law § 240(1) liability attaches without the worker having to pinpoint the exact moment or device failure, and credible, unrebutted testimony can warrant summary judgment for the plaintiff.