Misseritti v. Mark IV Constr. Co., 86 N.Y.2d 487 (1995)
Labor Law § 240(1), also known as the Scaffold Law, applies to elevation-related hazards and does not extend to injuries caused by the collapse of a completed structure at a construction site, even if bracing was absent.
Summary
Plaintiff’s decedent, a mason, was injured when a completed fire wall collapsed at a construction site. The plaintiff sued, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) due to the absence of bracing on the wall. The New York Court of Appeals held that the collapse of a completed fire wall is an ordinary construction site peril, not an elevation-related risk covered by § 240(1). The court clarified that the “braces” referred to in the statute pertain to those used to support elevated work sites, not to shore up completed structures, and affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim.
Facts
The plaintiff’s decedent, a mason employed by a subcontractor, was working on townhouses under construction. He was injured when a completed concrete-block fire wall collapsed. At the time of the collapse, the decedent and a co-worker had dismantled the scaffolding used to erect the wall and were sweeping the area. The fire wall had not yet been vertically braced.
Procedural History
The plaintiff sued Mark IV Construction Co., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). Supreme Court granted the plaintiff partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim. The Appellate Division modified, granting summary judgment to the defendant, dismissing the § 240(1) cause of action. The plaintiff appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the collapse of a completed fire wall due to the absence of bracing constitutes an elevation-related hazard within the scope of Labor Law § 240(1), thereby entitling the injured worker to recovery under that statute.
Holding
No, because Labor Law § 240(1) is aimed at elevation-related hazards, and the collapse of a completed fire wall constitutes an ordinary construction site peril, not a hazard related to elevation differentials.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that Labor Law § 240(1), often referred to as the Scaffold Law, is primarily concerned with protecting workers from elevation-related risks at construction sites. The statute requires owners and contractors to provide safety devices to protect workers from gravity-related hazards. The court emphasized that not every hazard encountered at a construction site falls within the purview of § 240(1). The court stated: “Labor Law § 240 (1) was aimed only at elevation-related hazards and that, accordingly, injuries resulting from other types of hazards are not compensable under that statute even if proximately caused by the absence of * * * [a] required safety device” (quoting Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 500). The court interpreted the term “braces” in § 240(1) to refer to devices used to support elevated work sites, not to shore up completed structures. Because the decedent was not working at an elevated level when the wall collapsed, and because the collapse itself was not an elevation-related accident, the court concluded that § 240(1) did not apply. The court determined that the accident was the “type of peril a construction worker usually encounters on the job site.”