Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494 (1993)

New York Labor Law § 240(1) applies only to elevation-related risks; § 241(6) requires violation of a specific safety regulation, not a general standard of care; and § 200(1) requires a showing of supervision or control by the defendant over the injury-producing work.

Summary

A welder, Ross, injured his back while working on a construction site. He sued the general contractor, Curtis-Palmer, alleging violations of New York Labor Law §§ 200(1), 240(1), and 241(6). Ross argued that the temporary platform provided was inadequate, forcing him to work in a contorted position. The New York Court of Appeals held that § 240(1) only applies to elevation-related hazards like falls, which did not cause his injury. The court further held that § 241(6) requires violation of a specific safety regulation, not merely a general standard of care. However, the court found sufficient evidence to suggest that the general contractor exercised supervisory control over the work, thus allowing the § 200(1) claim to proceed.

Facts

Ross, a welder employed by Bechtel Corporation, was assigned to weld a seam near the top of a deep shaft at a construction site managed by International Paper Co., the general contractor. He had to sit at the edge of a temporary platform and stretch awkwardly to reach the seam. Ross complained about the uncomfortable position but was instructed to continue due to time constraints. After several hours, Ross experienced severe back pain and was eventually diagnosed with a disabling back injury.

Procedural History

Ross sued International Paper, Curtis-Palmer, and Saratoga Development Corp. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing all claims. The Appellate Division reinstated all claims except the § 241(6) claim against International Paper. Both Ross and International Paper were granted leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether Labor Law § 240(1) applies to injuries sustained from working in a contorted position, even if not directly caused by a fall from an elevation.
2. Whether a claim under Labor Law § 241(6) can be based on a violation of a general safety standard rather than a specific regulatory requirement.
3. Whether, for a claim under Labor Law § 200(1), the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to suggest that the defendant exercised supervision and control over the work that led to his injury.

Holding

1. No, because Labor Law § 240(1) is aimed only at elevation-related hazards, and the injury sustained was not the result of a fall or being struck by a falling object.
2. No, because Labor Law § 241(6) requires a violation of a specific safety regulation, not merely a failure to meet a general standard of care.
3. Yes, because the contract between Curtis-Palmer and International Paper indicated that International Paper undertook to supervise the construction work and comply with safety standards, suggesting potential control over the worksite.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals clarified the scope of Labor Law § 240(1), stating that it targets elevation-related hazards, specifically “accidents in which the scaffold, hoist, stay, ladder or other protective device proved inadequate to shield the injured worker from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person.” The court distinguished between accidents caused by the inadequacy of safety devices to prevent falls (covered by § 240(1)) and other types of harm, even if caused by a deficient device.

Regarding § 241(6), the court emphasized the need for a violation of a specific and concrete regulatory requirement, not merely a general standard of care. The court stated that regulations using general terms like “adequate,” “effective,” or “proper” are insufficient to establish a nondelegable duty under § 241(6). To allow such general allegations would “seriously distort the scheme of liability for unsafe working conditions.” The court reasoned that “for purposes of the nondelegable duty imposed by Labor Law § 241 (6) and the regulations promulgated thereunder, a distinction must be drawn between provisions of the Industrial Code mandating compliance with concrete specifications and those that establish general safety standards by invoking the ‘[g]eneral descriptive terms’ set forth and defined in 12 NYCRR 23-1.4 (a).”

As for § 200(1), the court reiterated that liability requires a showing that the defendant exercised supervisory control over the work. In this case, the contract between Curtis-Palmer and International Paper, in which International Paper agreed to supervise construction and comply with safety standards, created a basis for believing that further discovery might reveal actual supervision or control by International Paper. Dismissing the § 200(1) claim prematurely would require assuming that International Paper routinely breached its contractual obligations. The court cited CPLR 3212(f), regarding facts unavailable to opposing party, as a basis to allow further discovery.