15 N.Y.3d 50 (2010)
A property owner who did not contract for the injury-inducing work is not liable under Labor Law § 241(6) unless there is a nexus (connection) between the owner and the injured worker, established by a lease agreement, easement, work permit, or other property interest.
Summary
Alan Morton, an employee of a private water company, was injured while repairing a water main break beneath a state highway. He sued the State under Labor Law § 241(6), alleging the State failed to provide a safe excavation site. The Court of Appeals held that the State was not liable because the water company did not obtain a work permit from the State Department of Transportation before commencing the repairs. This absence of a permit meant that there was no nexus (legal connection) between Morton and the State, as required to establish liability under Labor Law § 241(6). The court emphasized that without a permit, Morton was essentially a trespasser on state property.
Facts
Alan Morton, employed by New York Water Service Corporation, was part of a crew dispatched to repair a water main break under Carman Mill Road, a state highway. The crew excavated a trench to access the water main. While Morton was working in the trench, it collapsed, injuring his leg. The water company had not obtained a work permit from the New York State Department of Transportation before starting the repair work.
Procedural History
Morton sued the State, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241(6). The Court of Claims dismissed the negligence claims. After a trial on the Labor Law § 241(6) claim, the Court of Claims found the State 100% liable. The Appellate Division reversed, granting the State summary judgment and dismissing the § 241(6) claim. Morton appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the State, as the owner of the highway, can be held liable under Labor Law § 241(6) for injuries sustained by an employee of a private company repairing a water main beneath the highway, when the company failed to obtain a required work permit from the State Department of Transportation?
Holding
No, because the water company’s failure to obtain a work permit meant there was no nexus (legal connection) between the injured worker and the State, as required to impose liability on the State as a property owner under Labor Law § 241(6).
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on the principle that ownership alone is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 241(6). There must be a nexus between the owner and the worker, such as a lease agreement, easement, or other property interest. The court emphasized that in the absence of a work permit, the water company and its employee (Morton) were essentially trespassing on state property. The court distinguished this case from situations where the owner has granted some form of property interest or permission for the work to be performed. The court stated, “Here, there was no lease agreement or grant of an easement or other property interest creating a nexus between claimant and the State. Claimant was performing excavation work on the State’s premises `not by reason of any action of the [State] but by reason’ of the water company’s obligation to repair a break in its water line.” The dissent argued that the work was an emergency repair, but the majority countered that even in an emergency, a work permit was still required (though notification procedures might differ). The court also noted the importance of work permits for ensuring safety inspections, protecting the integrity of the roadway, and verifying that the permittee has sufficient liability insurance to protect the State’s interests. The court quoted Abbatiello v Lancaster Studio Assoc., stating “Any permission to work on the premises [would have been] granted upon compulsion and no relationship [would have] existed between [the State] and [the water company] or [claimant]” in the event a work permit was not needed for emergency repairs.