New York Law Review

Comes v. New York State Electric and Gas Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 876 (1993): Owner Liability for Contractor’s Negligence

Published by

The New York Law Review

in

Comes v. New York State Electric and Gas Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 876 (1993)

An owner or general contractor is liable under Labor Law § 200 for a construction worker’s injuries only if they had the authority to control the activity bringing about the injury, or violated concrete specifications imposing a duty on the defendant.

Summary

Lynn Comes, a construction worker, was injured when he was directed by his employer to carry a heavy steel beam unassisted. He sued the property owner, New York State Electric and Gas Corp. (NYSEG), alleging violations of New York Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6). The New York Court of Appeals held that NYSEG was not liable under § 200 because it did not control the work that led to the injury, and was not liable under § 241(6) because the regulations cited were general safety standards, not specific requirements. This case clarifies the scope of owner liability for construction site injuries in New York.

Facts

Lynn Comes was employed by a general contractor hired by NYSEG to construct a building on NYSEG’s land. Comes was instructed by his employer to lift and carry a 14-foot steel I-beam without assistance. He sustained personal injuries as a result. NYSEG hired a construction inspector whose duties were limited to observing the work and reporting safety violations to the contractor.

Procedural History

Comes and his wife sued NYSEG, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6). The lower court ruled in favor of NYSEG. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision, dismissing the claims. Comes appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether NYSEG is liable under Labor Law § 200 for Comes’ injuries, based on common-law negligence principles of providing a safe workplace?

2. Whether NYSEG is liable under Labor Law § 241(6) for Comes’ injuries, based on a violation of a specific safety regulation?

Holding

1. No, because NYSEG did not exercise supervisory control over the method of Comes’ work and the injury arose from the contractor’s own methods.

2. No, because the plaintiffs alleged violations of only general safety standards of the Industrial Code, not concrete specifications imposing a duty on NYSEG.

Court’s Reasoning

Regarding the § 200 claim, the Court of Appeals reiterated that liability under this section requires that the party charged with responsibility have the authority to control the activity bringing about the injury. The court emphasized that because Comes’ injury was caused by lifting the beam and NYSEG did not control how the beam was moved, no liability attached. The court distinguished this case from those where the owner had notice of an unsafe condition, explicitly stating that it had not adopted the reasoning that mere notice of an unsafe manner of work is sufficient for liability under § 200.

Regarding the § 241(6) claim, the court emphasized that liability under this section requires a violation of a specific, concrete safety standard. The court cited Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., stating that general safety standards are insufficient to impose liability. Because Comes only alleged violations of general safety standards, his claim under § 241(6) failed. The court stated that the duty imposed by section 241(6) requires owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to construction workers, but that a violation requires a concrete specification.

More ARTICLES