Long v. Forest-Fehlhaber, 55 N.Y.2d 154 (1982)
Violation of a rule promulgated by the State Board of Standards and Appeals pursuant to Labor Law §241(6) is merely some evidence of negligence, and therefore contributory negligence (for pre-September 1975 accidents) or comparative negligence (for post-September 1975 accidents) is a defense.
Summary
Ernest Long, a concrete finisher, was injured at a construction site when he tripped over an exposed electrical conduit in a dark passageway. He sued the electrical contractor, Forest-Fehlhaber, alleging a violation of Labor Law §241(6) and related safety regulations. The initial trial allowed contributory negligence as a complete defense, resulting in a verdict for the defendant. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that contributory negligence was not a defense. The second trial, without considering Long’s negligence, resulted in a verdict apportioning liability between Forest-Fehlhaber and Long’s employer. The Court of Appeals reversed, clarifying that violating administrative rules under §241(6) is evidence of negligence, not negligence per se, and therefore, contributory or comparative negligence is a valid defense.
Facts
On February 3, 1975, Ernest Long, an experienced concrete finisher, was injured at the South Mall construction site in Albany. While walking in a “pitch black” temporary passageway leading to his work area, he tripped over an exposed electrical conduit. The accident occurred approximately 45 minutes before the scheduled start time. Forest-Fehlhaber, the electrical contractor, was responsible for maintaining adequate illumination in the passageway, as per Board of Standards and Appeals rule 23-1.30.
Procedural History
Long sued Forest-Fehlhaber. The first trial resulted in a jury verdict for Forest-Fehlhaber, as the judge allowed contributory negligence as a complete defense. The Appellate Division reversed, ordering a new trial on the grounds that contributory negligence was not a defense to a §241(6) claim. The second trial, under the Appellate Division’s instruction, found Forest-Fehlhaber liable, apportioning damages. Forest-Fehlhaber appealed to the Court of Appeals from the final judgment after the second trial, bringing up the non-final order from the first appeal for review.
Issue(s)
Whether contributory negligence (for pre-September 1975 accidents) or comparative negligence (for post-September 1975 accidents) is a defense to an action premised on the violation of rules promulgated by the State Board of Standards and Appeals pursuant to subdivision 6 of section 241 of the Labor Law.
Holding
No, because the violation of administrative rules adopted pursuant to Labor Law §241(6) does not constitute negligence as a matter of law. Therefore, contributory negligence (or comparative negligence, depending on the accident date) is a defense to actions based on such violations.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals disagreed with the Appellate Division’s interpretation of Allen v. Cloutier Constr. Corp., clarifying that the term “absolute liability” in that case referred to the nondelegable nature of the duty imposed on owners and contractors, not the elimination of all defenses. The court emphasized that Allen recognized that a violation of an administrative regulation is merely “some evidence of negligence” (Allen v. Cloutier Constr. Corp., 44 N.Y.2d 290, 298). The court distinguished between violations of explicit statutory provisions and breaches of administrative rules. A breach of an administrative rule does not establish negligence as a matter of law and, therefore, does not preclude the defense of contributory negligence (or comparative negligence). The court noted that Labor Law §241(6) itself provides only a broad standard, leaving the specifics to the Board of Standards and Appeals. "[V]iolation of the administrative rules adopted pursuant to the authorization of subdivision 6 of section 241 of the Labor Law cannot rise to the level of negligence as a matter of law, contributory negligence was, and comparative negligence now is, a defense to an action based on such a dereliction."