Sullivan v Flynn
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction site safety: whether a temporary wooden brace placed in the middle of a kitchen constituted a dangerous premises condition actionable under Labor Law § 200 [codifies the common-law duty of a landowner and general contractor to furnish workers with a reasonably safe place to work] and common-law negligence, notwithstanding that the condition was open and obvious.
Granted defendants’ summary judgment, finding no duty to warn and concluding that any hazard was open and obvious and inherent in the circumstances, so any failure to maintain a safe premises was not a substantial factor in causing the injury.
The order granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Open and obvious conditions do not, by themselves, eliminate a contractor’s duty to maintain a reasonably safe worksite; defendants created the condition by installing the brace and failed to establish as a matter of law that the site was reasonably safe. Triable issues remain for a jury; plaintiff’s prior awareness goes to comparative negligence only.
Background
Homeowners building a new residence ordered custom kitchen cabinetry from plaintiff. While construction was ongoing, plaintiff visited to take kitchen measurements and tripped over a 45-degree two-by-four wooden construction brace positioned from the ceiling to the middle of the kitchen floor, injuring his leg. Plaintiff sued the general contractor/defendants for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law § 200, alleging failure to maintain a safe worksite and to warn. Defendants denied liability, asserted comparative fault, and later moved for summary judgment, contending the brace was necessary, customary, and not inherently dangerous. Defendants’ expert (a long-time general construction executive) opined the brace was conspicuous, necessary for structural support at that stage, and non-negligent in placement. Plaintiff submitted expert evidence to the contrary, asserting the mid-room placement rendered the workplace unsafe. In opposing summary judgment, plaintiff expressly waived any separate duty-to-warn theory, focusing on defendants’ duty to maintain a safe workplace.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court (Warren County, Muller, J.) granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding defendants had no duty to warn and that any failure to maintain the premises safely was not a substantial factor in the accident because the brace was readily observable and any hazard was inherent in the construction setting.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Third Department reversed and denied the motion. It held that the open and obvious nature of the brace did not, by itself, eliminate defendants’ duty to maintain a reasonably safe worksite; it only negates a duty to warn (a theory plaintiff had waived). Because defendants created the condition by installing the brace and their proof did not establish as a matter of law that the worksite was reasonably safe, triable issues of fact remain. Plaintiff’s prior observation of the brace raises comparative negligence issues for the jury rather than defeating the claim as a matter of law.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that, in construction site premises-condition cases under Labor Law § 200, the open and obvious nature of a condition does not automatically absolve landowners or general contractors of their duty to maintain a reasonably safe worksite; it primarily bears on the duty to warn and comparative negligence. Where the defendant created the condition, summary judgment is inappropriate if factual issues remain as to reasonable safety.
Open and obvious construction elements (like temporary braces) do not eliminate a contractor’s Labor Law § 200 duty to maintain a safe workplace; they may defeat only a warning claim and go to comparative negligence. When the contractor created the condition, whether the site was reasonably safe is typically a jury question, precluding summary judgment.