Rizzuto v. L.A. Wenger Contracting Co., 91 N.Y.2d 343 (1998)
r
r
Under Labor Law § 241(6), a general contractor has a nondelegable duty to provide reasonable and adequate protection to workers on a construction site and can be held vicariously liable for injuries caused by the negligence of other parties, even without direct supervision or control, when a specific safety regulation is violated.
r
r
Summary
r
John Rizzuto, a plumbing foreman, was injured at a New York City Transit Authority bus terminal undergoing rehabilitation. Diesel fuel sprayed onto the work area, causing Rizzuto to slip and fall. He sued the general contractor, L.A. Wenger Contracting Co., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) and common-law negligence. The lower courts granted summary judgment to the contractor, finding no evidence of supervisory control or notice of the dangerous condition. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that under § 241(6), the contractor could be vicariously liable for negligence of other parties if a specific safety regulation was violated, regardless of the contractor’s direct control or notice. The Court also found a triable issue of fact regarding the contractor’s control and negligence under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence principles.
r
r
Facts
r
The New York City Transit Authority’s 126th Street Bus Terminal was undergoing rehabilitation while remaining operational. L.A. Wenger Contracting Co. was the general contractor, and Milo Mechanical (Rizzuto’s employer) was a subcontractor. Rizzuto, a plumbing foreman for Milo Mechanical, was replacing a pump when Transit Authority employees nearby pressure-tested an underground tank. Diesel fuel erupted, spraying Rizzuto and his work area. Rizzuto slipped on the fuel-covered floor and sustained injuries.
r
r
Procedural History
r
Rizzuto sued L.A. Wenger Contracting Co. in Supreme Court, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200(1) and 241(6). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendant. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding no evidence that the general contractor had notice of any dangerous condition. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and reversed the Appellate Division’s order, reinstating all three causes of action.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
1. Whether a general contractor’s liability under Labor Law § 241(6) requires notice of the hazardous condition causing the injury.
r
2. Whether the regulatory provisions cited by the plaintiff set forth the requisite specific standard giving rise to a nondelegable duty under Labor Law § 241(6).
r
3. Whether there was a triable issue of fact as to the general contractor’s control and negligence under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence principles.
r
r
Holding
r
1. No, because Labor Law § 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty on owners and general contractors, making them vicariously liable for the negligence of other parties, irrespective of their notice or control.
r
2. Yes, because 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d) mandates a distinct standard of conduct regarding slippery conditions, providing a concrete specification for liability under Labor Law § 241(6).
r
3. Yes, because there was sufficient evidence to suggest that the general contractor had control over the work site and knew or should have known of the danger to the plaintiff.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court reasoned that Labor Law § 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty on owners and general contractors to provide reasonable safety to workers. This duty makes them vicariously liable for the negligence of other parties involved in the construction project, even without direct supervision or control. The Court emphasized that the