Eric Lackenbauer v. 162 Fifth Avenue Associates LLC et al.; Inscape (New York) Inc. et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction-site trip hazard liability 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 and to comply with the Industrial Code], predicated on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7(e)(2) [requires working areas to be kept free from accumulations of dirt/debris and from scattered tools and materials insofar as practicable] and § 23-2.1(a)(1) [prohibits storage of building materials/equipment so as to obstruct passageways, walkways, stairways, or other thoroughfares].
Granted plaintiff summary judgment on liability under § 241(6) based on both § 23-1.7(e)(2) and § 23-2.1(a)(1), and dismissed L&K's affirmative defenses of sole proximate cause and culpable conduct.
Summary judgment on the § 23-2.1(a)(1) theory and dismissal of the comparative negligence (culpable conduct) defense were reversed.
Issues of fact remain as to whether the accident occurred in a passageway and whether the pile consisted of building materials (covered by § 23-2.1[a][1]) or mere debris (not covered). Comparative negligence may offset damages under § 241(6). Summary judgment under § 23-1.7(e)(2) was properly granted because the cluttered area was a working area the plaintiff had to traverse to access materials.
Background
Plaintiff, a construction worker, testified he had to enter an area containing a 'messy pile' of materials to access his work supplies. While carrying molding up to eight feet long and up to four pounds, he attempted to pick up additional materials from the pile and tripped and fell. He alleged violations of the Industrial Code supporting a Labor Law § 241(6) claim against L&K Partners, Inc., among others.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, New York County, granted plaintiff summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 241(6) premised on both Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(2) and § 23-2.1(a)(1), and dismissed L&K's affirmative defenses of sole proximate cause and culpable conduct.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified: it affirmed summary judgment on liability under § 23-1.7(e)(2) because the area, which plaintiff was required to traverse to access materials, qualified as a working area with scattered materials that caused the trip. It denied summary judgment under § 23-2.1(a)(1), finding triable issues as to whether the location was a passageway and whether the pile was building material rather than debris. It affirmed dismissal of the sole proximate cause defense (given partial liability established under § 241[6]) but reinstated the culpable conduct (comparative negligence) defense, noting plaintiff's manner of carrying long molding while performing another task could reduce damages.
Legal Significance
Clarifies the distinction between Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(2) (working-area clutter) and § 23-2.1(a)(1) (obstructions in passageways by stored building materials) in the § 241(6) context; emphasizes that debris alone does not trigger § 23-2.1(a)(1) and that whether an area is a passageway is a fact question. Reinforces that while sole proximate cause is unavailable once liability under § 241(6) is established, comparative negligence remains a viable defense impacting damages.
Trip hazards in areas workers must traverse to access materials can establish § 241(6) liability under § 23-1.7(e)(2), but claims under § 23-2.1(a)(1) require proof of an obstructed passageway by stored building materials; comparative negligence may still reduce damages.