Gordon v. Eastern Railway Supply, Inc., 82 N.Y.2d 555 (1993)
A landowner who leases property is still considered an “owner” under New York Labor Law § 240(1) and can be held liable for worker injuries resulting from inadequate safety devices, even if the landowner did not control or supervise the work.
Summary
Gordon, an employee of Ebenezer Railcar Services, was injured while cleaning a railroad car on property owned by Eastern Railway Supply, Inc. Eastern had leased the property to Ebenezer. Gordon fell from a ladder while using a sandblaster. The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether Eastern, as the landowner, could be held liable under Labor Law § 240(1), despite leasing the property. The Court held that ownership alone is sufficient to impose liability under the statute, regardless of the landowner’s control or supervision of the work, and that the injury arose from an elevation-related risk contemplated by the statute. The court also rejected the defendant’s ‘recalcitrant worker’ defense.
Facts
Eastern Railway Supply, Inc. owned property it leased to its subsidiary, Ebenezer Railcar Services, Inc. GATX Capital Corp. owned a railroad car that Ebenezer was contracted to clean. Plaintiff Gordon, an Ebenezer employee, was cleaning the railroad car with a hand-held sandblaster while on a ladder. The ladder tipped, causing Gordon to fall and lose control of the sandblaster, resulting in sandblasting injuries.
Procedural History
Gordon sued Eastern and GATX. Supreme Court denied cross-motions for summary judgment. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to Gordon, finding Eastern liable under Labor Law § 240(1). One Appellate Division Justice dissented on the ‘recalcitrant worker’ issue. Eastern appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether Eastern, as the owner-lessor of the property, is subject to strict liability as an “owner” under Labor Law § 240(1)?
2. Whether Gordon’s injury was within the hazards contemplated by Labor Law § 240(1)?
3. Whether Eastern’s allegations that Gordon was a recalcitrant worker were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact?
Holding
1. Yes, because Labor Law § 240(1) imposes a nondelegable duty on all owners, regardless of whether they leased the property or controlled the work.
2. Yes, because Gordon was working at an elevation, and the ladder’s failure to prevent his fall was a proximate cause of his injuries.
3. No, because the ‘recalcitrant worker’ defense requires a refusal to use provided safety devices, not merely a failure to follow instructions.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that Labor Law § 240(1) places ultimate responsibility for worksite safety on owners and contractors. The duty is nondelegable, and liability attaches based on ownership, irrespective of control or supervision. Citing Celestine v. City of New York, the Court emphasized that the statute applies to “all owners”. The Court rejected Eastern’s argument that it wasn’t liable because it didn’t own the railroad car, stating that the presence of the railroad car on Eastern’s property was a direct result of Eastern’s actions, establishing a sufficient nexus for liability.
Regarding the statutory hazard, the Court stated that Labor Law § 240(1) applies to “risks related to elevation differentials” (Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co., 78 N.Y.2d 509, 514). Since Gordon was working on a ladder, he was subject to such a risk, and the ladder failed to prevent his fall. The Court held that the allegedly defective sandblaster was not a superseding cause, as the injury was a foreseeable consequence of working at an elevation without proper safety devices. As the court stated, “Defendants are liable for all normal and foreseeable consequences of their acts.”
Finally, the Court rejected the recalcitrant worker defense. The Court held that “an instruction by an employer or owner to avoid using unsafe equipment or engaging in unsafe practices is not a ‘safety device’ in the sense that plaintiff’s failure to comply with the instruction is equivalent to refusing to use available, safe and appropriate equipment.” Eastern failed to show that Gordon refused to use available safety devices.