Runner v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 28 N.Y.3d 539 (2016)
Labor Law § 240(1) applies to falling object injuries only when the object is being hoisted or secured, or requires securing for the purposes of the undertaking, and the injury is proximately caused by the absence or inadequacy of a safety device enumerated in the statute.
Summary
An electrician, Runner, was injured when a conduit pipe fell on his hand while relocating a pencil box. He sued under Labor Law § 240(1), claiming the compression coupling securing the conduit was inadequate. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s denial of summary judgment for the defendants (building owner and general contractor), holding that the compression coupling was not a safety device within the meaning of the statute. The Court clarified that § 240(1) liability for falling objects requires proof that the object was being hoisted or secured, or required securing for the task at hand, and that the injury resulted from the lack of, or inadequate, safety device listed in the statute. Here, the coupling’s purpose was support, not worker protection.
Facts
Runner, an electrician, was tasked with relocating a “pencil box” (access point for telecommunication wires) that was connected to conduit piping. The pencil box was affixed between two vertical sections of conduit. Runner cut the conduit above and below the pencil box, removed the box, and began drilling new holes to relocate the support. Approximately 15 minutes later, the top conduit section, which was connected to a horizontal conduit near the ceiling by a compression coupling, fell and injured Runner’s hand.
Procedural History
Runner sued the building owner (1095 Avenue of the Americas), the general contractor (J.T. Magen Construction), and the tenant (Dechert, LLP), among others, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). Supreme Court granted Runner’s motion for partial summary judgment. The Appellate Division modified, denying Runner’s motion but otherwise affirming. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division order regarding the building owner and general contractor, granting their motion for summary judgment, and answered the certified question in the negative.
Issue(s)
Whether the compression coupling connecting the conduit pipe constituted a safety device within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1), such that its alleged inadequacy could give rise to liability for a falling object injury.
Holding
No, because the compression coupling was not a safety device intended to protect against falling objects, but rather a standard component used to support the conduit/pencil box assembly.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court emphasized that Labor Law § 240(1) imposes absolute liability only where the failure to provide proper protection is a proximate cause of the worker’s injury. To prevail in a falling object case, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the object was being hoisted or secured, or required securing for the purposes of the undertaking, and that the injury was due to the absence or inadequacy of a safety device enumerated in the statute. The Court distinguished between devices meant to provide general support and those intended for worker protection from falling objects. Quoting Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., the court reiterated that a plaintiff must show that the object fell “because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute”. Here, the compression coupling’s function was to keep the conduit together, not to prevent it from falling and injuring workers. The court noted that the plaintiff’s argument would inappropriately extend the statute’s reach to any component that lends support to a structure. The Court also noted that the fact that plaintiff suggested a different type of coupling (set screw coupling) would have been better was of no moment, because both couplings serve the same purpose of support and neither is a safety device within the meaning of the statute.