96 N.Y.2d 259 (2001)

Labor Law § 240(1) imposes absolute liability on owners and contractors for injuries caused by falling objects only when the objects are being hoisted or secured and fall due to the absence or inadequacy of a safety device enumerated in the statute; it does not apply to general workplace hazards or pre-existing structural elements.

Summary

These consolidated cases address the scope of liability under Labor Law § 240(1) in the context of falling objects. In Narducci, a window frame fell on a worker. In Capparelli, a light fixture fell on an electrician during installation. The New York Court of Appeals held that § 240(1) only applies when the falling object is related to a significant risk inherent in the elevation at which materials or loads must be positioned or secured, and when the object falls because of inadequate safety devices. The court found that neither case involved such risks, limiting the statute’s application to situations involving the hoisting or securing of materials.

Facts

In Narducci, Alex Narducci, an employee of Atlantic Windows, was removing steel window frames from a fire-damaged warehouse. While standing on a ladder, a piece of glass from an adjacent window fell and injured him. The glass was part of the pre-existing building structure. In Capparelli, Louis Capparelli, Jr., an electrician, was installing light fixtures into a dropped ceiling. While on a ladder, a light fixture he was installing began to fall, and he injured his hand trying to stop it. Plaintiff did not fall from the ladder in either case.

Procedural History

In Narducci, the Supreme Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed. In Capparelli, the Supreme Court denied cross-motions for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim. The Appellate Division modified, granting summary judgment to the third-party defendant, holding that the injury was caused by the usual and ordinary dangers of a construction site, not the extraordinary elevation risks covered by Labor Law § 240(1). The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue(s)

1. Whether Labor Law § 240(1) applies to injuries caused by falling objects that are not being hoisted or secured at the time of the accident.

2. Whether the fact that a worker is at an elevation when injured by a falling object brings the scenario within the ambit of Labor Law § 240(1) if the object was not being hoisted or secured.

Holding

1. No, because Labor Law § 240(1) applies only where the falling of an object is related to a significant risk inherent in the relative elevation at which materials or loads must be positioned or secured, and the object falls due to the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute.

2. No, because working at an elevation does not increase the risk of being hit by an improperly hoisted load; the hazard posed by working at an elevation is that the worker might be injured in a fall. The different risks arise from different construction practices, and the hazard from one type of activity cannot be transferred to create liability for a different type of accident.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that Labor Law § 240(1) is intended to protect workers from elevation-related risks stemming from the failure to use adequate safety devices such as scaffolds, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, and ropes. The Court emphasized that the statute’s protections extend to falling objects only when the falling object is related to “a significant risk inherent in * * * the relative elevation * * * at which materials or loads must be positioned or secured.” In Narducci, the falling glass was part of the pre-existing building structure and was not being hoisted or secured. The absence of a hoisting or securing device did not cause the glass to fall; thus, it was a general workplace hazard. In Capparelli, there was no height differential between the plaintiff and the falling object, meaning the injury wasn’t due to an elevation-related risk within the statute’s scope. The Court stated, “Even ‘a violation of [Labor Law § 240 (1)] 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.”’” The Court distinguished between risks inherent in working at an elevation (falling from a height) and risks associated with falling objects (improper hoisting or securing). It clarified that the statute does not cover every gravity-related accident; courts must discern the Legislature’s intended application. The Court found that the scissor jack was designed to protect the worker from falling, an entirely different risk. Here, the plaintiff was adequately secured, and the only risk was the glass. Since the glass was not an object being hoisted or secured, Labor Law § 240(1) does not apply.