Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co., 78 N.Y.2d 509 (1991)
New York Labor Law § 240(1) imposes absolute liability for elevation-related risks inherent in construction work, requiring protective devices when a difference in elevation creates a hazard, but does not apply to general workplace hazards.
Summary
Rocovich, an insulation worker, was injured when he slipped and fell into a trough of hot oil while working on a power plant roof. He sued Consolidated Edison, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). The Court of Appeals held that § 240(1) did not apply because the injury was not caused by an elevation-related risk requiring protective devices like scaffolding or ladders, but rather from a general workplace hazard. The Court emphasized that § 240(1) is specifically targeted at elevation risks, not all dangerous conditions.
Facts
Rocovich, an employee of King Insulation Company, was repairing insulation on pipes located in a recessed area on the roof of Consolidated Edison’s power plant. The recessed area contained a trough, 18-36 inches wide and 12 inches deep, filled with hot oil. While attempting to step across the trough, Rocovich slipped and fell, immersing his foot and ankle in the hot oil, causing injury.
Procedural History
At trial, Rocovich moved for a directed verdict based on Consolidated Edison’s violation of Labor Law § 240(1), arguing his comparative negligence was irrelevant. The trial court denied this motion and submitted the case under § 241(6), which allows for consideration of the plaintiff’s culpable conduct. The jury found Consolidated Edison 10% at fault and Rocovich 90% at fault. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment. Rocovich appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether Labor Law § 240(1) applies to an injury sustained when a worker slips and falls into a trough of hot oil while working on a roof, where the risk is not directly related to an elevation differential requiring protective devices.
Holding
No, because Labor Law § 240(1) is intended to protect workers from elevation-related risks requiring specific safety devices like scaffolds and ladders, and does not extend to general workplace hazards, even if dangerous.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that while Labor Law § 240(1) is to be liberally construed to protect workers, its application is limited to specific types of hazards: those related to elevation differentials. The statute lists devices like scaffolding, hoists, ladders, etc., which are designed to protect against risks associated with working at heights or with elevated materials. The court reasoned that the legislative intent behind § 240(1) was to address the special hazards of working where gravity poses a risk due to differences in elevation. The court stated, “Manifestly, a violation of the statute cannot ‘establish liability if the statute is intended to protect against a particular hazard, and a hazard of a different kind is the occasion of the injury’ (DeHaen v Rockwood Sprinkler Co., 258 NY 350, 353)”. The court rejected Rocovich’s argument that the degree of the hazard should determine the applicability of § 240(1). Adopting such an interpretation would render Labor Law § 241(6), which governs general workplace safety, virtually useless. The court held that Rocovich’s injury, while unfortunate, stemmed from a general workplace hazard and not an elevation-related risk contemplated by § 240(1). Therefore, the case was properly submitted to the jury under § 241(6), where comparative fault could be considered.