Persichilli v. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, 16 N.Y.2d 136 (1965)
An owner is not liable for injuries to a contractor’s employee caused by the manner in which the contractor performs the work, especially when the owner does not control the work or the area where the injury occurred.
Summary
A bricklayer, Persichilli, died from injuries sustained when bricks fell on him at a construction site. His employer was placing bricks on a floor above where he was working to build a wall. The New York Court of Appeals held that the owner, Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, was not liable because the injury resulted from the manner in which the employer carried out the work, and the owner did not control the work or the area. The court emphasized that the area was not a common usage area under the owner’s control, absolving the owner of liability for providing an unsafe workplace.
Facts
The decedent, Persichilli, was employed as a bricklayer.
He was constructing a wall at a site managed by his employer.
Bricks being placed by his employer on a floor above him fell and fatally injured him.
These bricks were intended to be incorporated into the wall Persichilli was building as construction progressed.
The area where Persichilli was working was not a common area controlled by the owner.
The owner did not direct or control the manner in which Persichilli’s employer performed the work.
Procedural History
The lower court’s decision is not explicitly stated, but the Court of Appeals reversed an unspecified order, implying a judgment or order in favor of the plaintiff (Persichilli’s estate).
The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision and dismissed the complaint.
Issue(s)
Whether the owner of a construction site is liable for injuries to a contractor’s employee when the injuries are caused by the manner in which the contractor performs the work and the owner does not control the work or the area where the injury occurred.
Holding
No, because the accident was due to the manner in which the decedent’s employer prosecuted the work, and the negligence, if any, in its occurrence is not attributable to the owner; nor is the owner liable on the theory that it provided an unsafe place to work as the wall was being constructed.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the owner’s liability does not extend to injuries resulting from the contractor’s methods when the owner does not control the work or the site. The court relied on precedent, citing cases like Wright v. Belt Assoc., Gasper v. Ford Motor Co., Broderick v. Cauldwell-Wingate Co., Mullin v. Genesee County Elec. Light, Power & Gas Co., and Grant v. Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp. The key principle is that an owner is not responsible for the safety of a work site when the contractor has control over the work and the area is not a common area maintained by the owner.
The court quoted Naso v. Wates & Co. (21 A D 2d 679, 680), summarizing the rule.
Judge Burke dissented, arguing that a question of fact existed for the jury’s consideration, suggesting disagreement on whether the owner’s lack of control was sufficiently established.