O’Connor v. Spencer-Green, 2 N.Y.3d 475 (2004)
To establish liability under Labor Law § 241(6) based on a violation of a regulation, the regulation must contain a specific, positive command, not merely incorporate general safety standards.
Summary
This case concerns a carpenter injured by a falling form component at a construction site, leading to a claim under Labor Law § 241(6), alleging violation of a Labor Department regulation regarding concrete forms. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s summary judgment dismissal, holding that further factual development was needed to determine if the regulation’s bracing requirements applied to the form component in question. The court emphasized that the regulation must impose specific requirements, and the meaning of specialized terms may require expert testimony.
Facts
The plaintiff, a carpenter, was injured at a construction site in Manhattan when a part of a concrete form fell on his hand. The object was part of the side of a form used to mold concrete walls. The plaintiff’s description of the object was incomplete, but it consisted of metal plates joined together. The plaintiff sued the construction manager and owner, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) based on a Labor Department regulation governing concrete work safety.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241(6) claim. The Appellate Division reversed, dismissing the claim. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether 12 NYCRR 23-2.2(a), requiring forms to be “braced or tied together so as to maintain position and shape,” was violated when a component of a concrete form fell and injured the plaintiff.
Holding
Yes, further proceedings are required because the record was insufficient to determine whether the regulation applied to the object that fell on the plaintiff and whether its requirements were violated. The Court reversed the Appellate Division order and remitted the case to the Supreme Court for further proceedings.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court explained that under Labor Law § 241(6), liability can only be imposed on owners and contractors if they violate a specific regulatory requirement. While the statute itself imposes a nondelegable duty to comply with the Commissioner of Labor’s rules, those rules must contain a “specific, positive command.” The court determined that while the words “structurally safe” and “properly” in 12 NYCRR 23-2.2(a) were too general, the phrase “braced or tied together so as to maintain position and shape” could impose more specific obligations. The key question, however, was whether this regulation applied only to completed forms or also to components of forms during assembly. The court found the record insufficient to answer this question, noting that the meaning of specialized terms in the regulation might require expert evidence. The court noted that the plaintiff’s engineer offered a conclusory affidavit but without explaining what should have been done to prevent the accident. Because the nature of the object that caused the injury, and the applicability of the regulation to it, remained unclear, the court held that summary judgment was premature. The court cited Millard v. City of Ogdensburg, 274 A.D.2d 953, 954 (4th Dept. 2000), for the proposition that the meaning of specialized terms within a regulation can require the court to hear evidence before making a determination.