Corning v. Allied Piping Inc., 86 N.Y.2d 261 (1995)

New York Labor Law § 240(1) imposes absolute liability on owners and contractors when a worker’s injuries are proximately caused by the failure to provide adequate safety devices to protect against elevation-related risks at a construction site.

Summary

This case concerns a painter who fell from a ladder while attempting to paint an alcove, falling over a wall and through a suspended ceiling. The New York Court of Appeals held that Labor Law § 240(1) was violated because the contractor failed to provide any safety device to protect the painter from the specific risk of falling over the alcove wall. The court affirmed summary judgment for the plaintiff and held the painting subcontractor liable for common-law indemnification to the general contractor because the subcontractor supervised the work. The ruling emphasizes the non-delegable duty of owners and contractors to provide adequate safety measures against elevation-related hazards.

Facts

Corning Incorporated owned a property called Sullivan Park and contracted with Wellco to perform construction work. Wellco subcontracted with Cook to perform painting work. Plaintiff, an employee of Cook, was injured while painting an alcove. He was positioned on a ladder, reaching over an eight-foot alcove wall to paint, when he lost his balance and fell over the wall and through a suspended ceiling to the floor below. No safety devices were provided to prevent a fall over the alcove wall.

Procedural History

The plaintiff sued Corning and Wellco, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240, 241, and 200. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs against Corning and Wellco on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240(1). Corning was granted contractual indemnity against Wellco, and Wellco was granted common-law indemnity against Cook. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted Cook leave to appeal from the Supreme Court judgment awarding damages.

Issue(s)

1. Whether summary judgment on liability was properly granted to the plaintiffs under Labor Law § 240(1)?

2. Whether the general contractor Wellco is entitled to indemnification from Cook in the absence of a showing of negligence by Cook and in view of the contractual indemnification agreement between the parties?

Holding

1. Yes, because the contractor failed to provide any safety device to protect the plaintiff from the specific elevation-related risk of falling over the alcove wall and through the suspended ceiling.

2. Yes, because Cook supervised and controlled the work of the injured plaintiff and is therefore liable for common-law indemnification, which is not superseded by the contractual agreement.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized that Labor Law § 240(1) places responsibility for worker safety on owners and contractors. The court identified two distinct elevation-related risks: the need to elevate the painter via a ladder, and the risk of falling over the alcove wall. While the ladder itself was not alleged to be defective, the critical failure was the lack of any safety device to protect the painter from falling over the alcove wall. The court cited Zimmer v. Chemung County Performing Arts, stating that an owner or contractor who fails to provide safety devices is absolutely liable when the absence of such devices is the proximate cause of injury. The court also referenced Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply, noting that a plaintiff need not demonstrate that the precise manner of the accident was foreseeable, only that some risk of injury was foreseeable. The court determined that the absence of protection against a fall through the elevated open area above the alcove was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries as a matter of law. Regarding indemnification, the court found that Cook supervised the work and was therefore liable for common-law indemnification, consistent with Hawthorne v. South Bronx Community Corp. The court clarified that a contractual agreement to indemnify does not supersede the common-law duty to provide indemnification when the subcontractor directly controlled the work.