Gasparrini v. Jackson Heights Shopping Center, Inc., 16 N.Y.2d 105 (1965)
An owner or general contractor’s duty to provide a safe workplace for subcontractor’s employees does not extend to hazards created by the subcontractor’s own defective equipment or methods.
Summary
Gasparrini, an employee of a subcontractor, was injured when a plank provided by his employer broke while he was working on a shopping center under construction. The Court of Appeals reversed a judgment in favor of Gasparrini, holding that the owner of the shopping center was not liable because the defective plank and the uncovered floor below were not a “place of work” furnished by the owner. The court emphasized that the owner’s duty to provide a safe workplace does not extend to the subcontractor’s own equipment or methods, or to hazards created as a detail of the subcontractor’s work.
Facts
Jackson Heights Shopping Center, Inc. owned a shopping center building under construction. Keystone Fireproofing Corporation, Gasparrini’s employer, was a subcontractor hired to install fiber glass insulation between the iron beams and the roof. Gasparrini was injured when a plank he was standing on broke, causing him to fall. The plank was provided by Keystone. The building was a single story with a cellar. Some of the floor was uncovered due to excavation, increasing the distance to the basement in that area.
Procedural History
Gasparrini sued Jackson Heights Shopping Center, Inc., the owner, and obtained a judgment in his favor at trial. The owner appealed, arguing that it had not breached any duty of care owed to Gasparrini. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision and dismissed the complaint.
Issue(s)
Whether the owner of a building under construction is liable for injuries sustained by a subcontractor’s employee when a plank provided by the subcontractor breaks, and the employee falls in an area where the floor below is uncovered due to excavation.
Holding
No, because the defective plank furnished by the plaintiff’s employer and the uncovered floor were not a “place of work” furnished by the owner, and the owner’s duty to provide a safe workplace does not extend to the subcontractor’s own equipment or methods.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that while an owner or general contractor has a common-law duty to provide a safe place to work for employees of subcontractors, this duty does not extend to hazards created by the subcontractor’s own negligence or defective equipment. The court distinguished this case from situations where the owner failed to maintain safe “ways and approaches” to the work site. The court cited several precedents, including Butler v. D. M. W. Contr. Co., where a scaffold erected by the plaintiff’s employer broke, and the court held that the scaffold was neither a place of work nor a way of approach furnished by the owner.
The court emphasized that the safe place to work rule, whether under statute or common law, does not include the subcontractor’s own plant or the work the subcontractor is doing. The court quoted Wohlfron v. Brooklyn Edison Co., stating that the owner’s duty is “clearly distinguishable from that arising through negligent acts of a subcontractor occurring as a detail of the work.”
The dissent argued that the issue was based on the alleged concurrent negligence of the owner in failing to cover the excavation into which the plaintiff fell, raising a proper issue of fact for the jury. However, the majority rejected this argument, focusing on the fact that the injury was directly caused by the subcontractor’s own defective plank. This case clarifies that an owner isn’t responsible for the day-to-day safety of a subcontractor’s tools and methods.