Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Associates, 96 N.Y.2d 259 (2001)
New York Labor Law § 240(1) imposes absolute liability on owners and contractors for failing to provide safety devices to protect workers from elevation-related risks, and this protection extends to situations where a worker falls a significant distance, even if they do not ultimately hit the ground.
Summary
Plaintiff, a roofer, slipped on frost while working on a sloped roof and slid 15-20 feet to the eaves, where his pants were snagged, preventing a fall to the ground. He sued the property owner under Labor Law § 240(1) for failing to provide safety devices. The New York Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff’s injury was covered under the statute because he was exposed to an elevation-related risk and the lack of safety devices was the proximate cause of his injuries. The Court clarified that coverage under § 240(1) does not require the worker to actually hit the ground; it is sufficient that the injury stems from a fall from a height.
Facts
The plaintiff was employed by Sahlem’s Roofing & Siding, Inc. and was instructed to lay felt and shingles on a newly constructed house roof. While walking along the roof’s ridge with a roll of felt, the plaintiff’s foot slipped on frost, causing him to twist and slide 15-20 feet down the roof to the eaves. Protruding nails snagged his pants, preventing him from falling to the ground. The plaintiff was not provided with any safety devices, such as toe boards or scaffolding, which were available at other work sites.
Procedural History
The plaintiff sued Hillcrest Heights Development Corporation, the property owner. The Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff, finding liability under Labor Law § 240(1). The Appellate Division affirmed this decision. The defendant appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the plaintiff’s accident, involving a slide down a roof that was stopped before hitting the ground, constituted an elevation-related risk covered under Labor Law § 240(1).
Holding
Yes, because the plaintiff was subject to an elevation-related risk due to the lack of safety devices, and the failure to provide these devices was the proximate cause of his injuries. Coverage under Labor Law § 240(1) does not require a worker to actually hit the ground after a fall.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that Labor Law § 240(1) imposes absolute liability on owners and contractors for failing to provide safety devices that protect workers from elevation-related hazards. The statute is interpreted liberally to achieve its purpose. The Court distinguished this case from Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co. and Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., noting that in those cases, the injuries were not directly related to the risk of falling from a height. In this case, the plaintiff fell a significant distance (15-20 feet) due to the lack of safety devices. The Court emphasized that the critical factor is the elevation-related risk and that the statute’s protection should not hinge on whether the worker ultimately hits the ground. The Court stated that “[i]n short, plaintiff was subject to an elevation-related risk while working on this particular roof, and he was not provided with any safety devices. In addition, the failure to provide any safety devices was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. He was within the protective ambit of Labor Law § 240 (1).”