Wissert v Medline Industries Inc.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
New York workplace safety (elevation-related risk) under Labor Law § 240 (1) [statute requiring owners and contractors to provide elevation-related safety devices to protect workers from gravity-related risks such as falls or falling objects].
Denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment; granted Medline’s cross-motion dismissing all of plaintiff’s claims after finding decedent was not engaged in work; dismissed Medline’s third-party complaint against Pengate as academic.
The grant of summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and wrongful death claim, and the dismissal of Medline’s third-party complaint as academic.
Conflicting evidence created triable issues of fact on whether decedent was performing covered repair work rather than routine maintenance and whether adequate elevation safety devices were provided or available, as well as on any conduct barring liability; the record also contradicted the finding that decedent was not engaged in work at the time.
Background
Decedent, a Pengate technician, went to Medline’s facility to address a leaking lift cylinder on an order picker whose platform raises and lowers. According to coworker Michael Hill, the job required repacking the hydraulics—raising and securing the platform, removing the cylinder, and installing new seals—a two-to-five-hour task outside scheduled maintenance and performed under a separate work order. On the day of the incident, after raising the platform without securing it, decedent determined the parts kit was incorrect but proceeded to attempt removal of a snap ring (a step in the repacking process). While Hill briefly went to a van, the elevated platform fell and fatally injured decedent. The machine’s manual instructed use of a safety stand between the carriage and baseleg when working with the platform elevated. Plaintiff sued Medline under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), 241 (6), negligence and wrongful death, and moved for partial summary judgment on § 240 (1) alleging lack of a safety stand. Medline cross-moved to dismiss and sought common-law indemnification against Pengate. Plaintiff’s expert opined the work was a repair from an isolated event and required a safety stand, not a chain; Medline’s/Pengate’s expert countered that the work was not a repair and that a chain was an adequate and available device.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court (Warren County, Auffredou, J.) denied plaintiff’s partial summary judgment motion, granted Medline’s cross-motion dismissing all claims on the ground that decedent was not engaged in work at the time, and dismissed the third-party complaint against Pengate as academic.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that the falling platform is a gravity-related risk within Labor Law § 240 (1) and that triable issues exist as to whether decedent was engaged in repair (as opposed to routine maintenance) and whether adequate safety devices were provided or available, including issues under the recalcitrant worker defense. Hill’s testimony that decedent was attempting to remove a snap ring moments before the accident undermined the finding that he was not working. The court modified the order by reinstating the Labor Law § 240 (1) and wrongful death claims and reviving Medline’s third-party complaint, while otherwise affirming.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that accidents involving falling elevated platforms on industrial equipment can fall within Labor Law § 240 (1) and that distinguishing repair from routine maintenance is a fact-driven inquiry. Conflicting proof regarding availability/adequacy of elevation devices (safety stand versus chain) and the worker’s conduct typically precludes summary judgment. A maintenance agreement’s labels do not control where evidence shows an isolated repair event.
Where a technician is performing or commencing a repair requiring work under an elevated platform and the manual specifies a safety stand, disputes over whether the task is a covered repair and whether an adequate elevation device was provided will generally defeat summary judgment for either side; related wrongful death and indemnification claims should proceed.