Kevin O'Brien v. Tectonic Builders Inc., et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction site safety under New York Labor Law § 241(6) [imposes a nondelegable duty on owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to construction workers, enforceable through violations of specific Industrial Code regulations] and Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7(e)(1)-(2) [requires passageways and working areas to be kept free from tripping hazards, obstructions, and sharp projections].
The Supreme Court, New York County denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 241(6) claim.
The appellate court modified the order to grant plaintiff partial summary judgment on § 241(6) based on violations of 12 NYCRR § 23-1.7(e)(1) and (2).
The damaged ramp used by workers functioned as both a passageway and working area; the raised nose created an obstruction/condition and a sharp projection within § 23-1.7(e). The 'integral to the work' defense did not apply because the ramp could have been repaired without halting the work, and plaintiff’s comparative negligence could not defeat § 241(6) liability.
Background
On January 9, 2019, plaintiff, a marble-floor finisher working on a renovation at 650 Madison Avenue, used a four-foot-wide plywood ramp in an adjacent staging space to reach a basement bathroom. The space had two floor levels with a 12–16 inch height differential. The day before, a heavy lift partially collapsed the ramp, lifting its lower edge 2–3 inches off the floor and leaving its upper edge non-flush. The ramp was not repaired. Plaintiff tripped on the raised front edge and suffered shoulder injuries, including a fracture and torn labrum.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court (Lyle E. Frank, J.) denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 241(6).
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held the ramp was a passageway under 12 NYCRR § 23-1.7(e)(1) and a working area under § 23-1.7(e)(2). The 2–3 inch raised nose constituted an obstruction/condition causing tripping and a sharp projection distinct from the surrounding floor. The hazard was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. The 'integral to the work' defense was rejected because the ramp could have been made safe without stopping the project. Defendants’ sole proximate cause argument failed, and any comparative negligence does not bar a § 241(6) claim. The order was modified to grant partial summary judgment on § 241(6) predicated on § 23-1.7(e)(1) and (2), and otherwise affirmed.
Legal Significance
Confirms that a damaged jobsite ramp used by workers qualifies as a 'passageway' and 'working area' under 12 NYCRR § 23-1.7(e), and that tripping hazards and sharp projections on such means of access can support Labor Law § 241(6) liability. Reiterates limits on the 'integral to the work' defense where hazards are readily remediable without impeding progress, and that comparative negligence does not defeat § 241(6) claims.
At construction sites, unrepaired damage to ramps used as access routes creates per se violations of 12 NYCRR § 23-1.7(e)(1)-(2) supporting Labor Law § 241(6) liability; the ability to repair the hazard without stopping work defeats the 'integral to the work' defense, and any worker negligence is only comparative and not a complete bar.