Nostrom v. A.W. Chesterton Co., 15 N.Y.3d 502 (2010)
Vicarious liability under Labor Law § 241(6) cannot be based solely on a violation of regulations in Part 12 of the Industrial Code unless those regulations are specifically incorporated into Part 23 of the Industrial Code.
Summary
This case addresses whether a claim of vicarious liability under Labor Law § 241(6) can be sustained solely on the basis of violations of regulations found in Part 12 of the Industrial Code. The Court of Appeals held that it cannot, unless those Part 12 regulations are explicitly incorporated into Part 23. The plaintiff, an asbestos worker, sought to hold the defendant liable for injuries based on violations of Part 12 regulations concerning air contamination. The Court reasoned that the language and history of the regulations indicate that Part 12 does not independently impose liability under Labor Law § 241(6), except when integrated into Part 23, especially section 23-1.7(g) concerning unventilated confined areas.
Facts
Donald Nostrom, a boilermaker, worked for subcontractors at energy facilities owned by Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc. (O&R) and Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. Sequoia Ventures, Inc. was the general contractor for some projects. Nostrom alleged exposure to asbestos during his work at these plants, leading to mesothelioma. He sued O&R, Central Hudson, and Sequoia, among other defendants, asserting a Labor Law § 241(6) claim based on violations of Industrial Code Part 12 regulations concerning air contamination.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against them. Nostrom appealed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claim. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that a violation of Part 12 regulations could not support a § 241(6) claim and that the regulations cited were not specific enough. The Court of Appeals granted Nostrom leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether vicarious liability under Labor Law § 241(6) can be predicated solely on violations of regulations contained in Part 12 of the Industrial Code.
Holding
No, because the language and history of the relevant provisions establish that Part 12 regulations do not provide a basis for liability under Labor Law § 241(6) except to the extent that particular regulations are specifically incorporated into Part 23.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court focused on statutory and regulatory interpretation, emphasizing legislative intent. It noted that Part 23 of the Industrial Code explicitly applies to owners, contractors, and their agents obligated by the Labor Law, indicating it was promulgated under the authority of Labor Law § 241(6). In contrast, the application section of Part 12 does not contain similar language, suggesting a lack of intent to impose vicarious liability under § 241(6) based on Part 12 violations alone.
The Court highlighted 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(g), which makes unventilated confined areas subject to Part 12, as further evidence. By explicitly incorporating Part 12 into Part 23 for these specific work sites, the intent was to impose a nondelegable duty only in limited circumstances. Allowing § 241(6) claims based on Part 12 violations regardless of location would render section 23-1.7(g) superfluous, a construction that should be avoided. The Court stated, “a construction that ‘renders one part meaningless should be avoided’ (Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 515 [1991]).”
The Court also examined the regulatory history of Parts 12 and 23. While Part 23’s predecessor regulations were adopted with reference to Labor Law § 241, Part 12’s revisions did not cite § 241 as a basis. This historical context reinforced the Court’s conclusion that Part 12 does not independently create liability under Labor Law § 241(6).