Robinson Alonzo v. RP1185 LLC et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction site safety—elevation-related and falling-object hazards during rebar installation.
The trial court denied plaintiff's summary judgment motion and granted defendants' summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
The dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) [New York "Scaffold Law" imposing absolute liability on owners/contractors for elevation-related risks requiring proper safety devices] claim and the denial of plaintiff’s summary judgment; the appellate court reinstated the complaint, denied defendants’ motion as to § 240(1), and granted plaintiff summary judgment on liability.
Unrebutted evidence showed plaintiff, working about 10 feet above the floor on rebar, was injured attempting to prevent a piece of rebar from falling—a gravity-related risk covered by § 240(1). No proper hoist was provided (no crane available), and the rebar platform was not shown to be stable or safe.
Background
Plaintiff was installing rebar at an elevated height, standing about 10 feet above the floor on previously installed rebar while coworkers above handed him additional pieces. When the rebar underfoot shifted or wobbled, he dropped a piece he was holding; it fell about one foot, and he injured his shoulder trying to catch it to prevent further fall.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, New York County, denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, effectively rejecting the Labor Law § 240(1) claim on the grounds that plaintiff neither fell nor was struck by a falling object.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed, reinstated the complaint, denied defendants’ motion to the extent it sought dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, and granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on liability. The court held § 240(1) liability may attach when a worker is injured while preventing an object from falling, even without the worker’s own fall or impact, and where proper hoists or stable platforms were not provided.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that Labor Law § 240(1) covers injuries from gravity-related risks where a worker is injured attempting to prevent a falling object, even if the object falls a short distance and the worker does not fall or get struck. Highlights owners’/contractors’ duty to provide suitable hoists and stable work platforms and that failure can warrant summary judgment for the plaintiff.
Under New York’s Scaffold Law, a worker injured while trying to stop a falling object can obtain summary judgment on liability where proper lifting devices or stable platforms were not provided, even if the worker did not fall or get struck.