New York Law Review

Tag: O’Sullivan v. IDI Const. Co.

  • O’Sullivan v. IDI Const. Co., Inc., 77 N.Y.2d 1011 (1991): Defining ‘Employed’ Under New York Labor Law for Construction Site Injuries

    O’Sullivan v. IDI Const. Co., Inc., 77 N.Y.2d 1011 (1991)

    An individual inspecting a construction site to prepare a repair estimate is not considered an ’employee’ under New York Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) and therefore cannot claim protection under those statutes.

    Summary

    O’Sullivan, a design engineer, was injured while inspecting roof damage on IDI Construction’s building to prepare a repair estimate for his employer, Ziegler Co. The New York Court of Appeals held that O’Sullivan was not an ’employee’ under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) because Ziegler Co. had not been hired to perform any construction work at the time of the accident. The court reasoned that merely being invited to submit an estimate does not transform a potential bidder into an employee. O’Sullivan could only recover if he could prove a traditional negligence claim.

    Facts

    IDI Construction sustained roof damage to one of its buildings. IDI sought repair estimates from several contractors, including Edward M. Ziegler Co., the plaintiff’s employer. O’Sullivan, a design engineer employed by Ziegler Co., went to IDI’s building to inspect the damage. While being shown the damaged area by IDI’s maintenance supervisor, the roof gave way, and O’Sullivan was injured. Ziegler Co. had not been hired to perform any work at the time of the accident.

    Procedural History

    O’Sullivan filed a lawsuit against IDI Construction. The specific rulings at the lower court and appellate division levels are not explicitly stated in this memorandum opinion, but the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and granted IDI Construction’s cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing O’Sullivan’s second cause of action.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a design engineer, who is injured while inspecting a building to prepare a repair estimate for his employer, qualifies as a person “employed” to carry out repairs under New York Labor Law §§ 200(1), 240(1), and 241(6), thus entitling him to the protections afforded by those statutes.

    Holding

    No, because the plaintiff’s firm had not been hired to perform any construction work on the premises at the time the accident occurred, the plaintiff was not a person ’employed’ to carry out the repairs as that term is used in New York Labor Law §§ 200(1), 240(1), and 241(6).

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that the plaintiff’s firm, Ziegler Co., was merely a potential bidder and not an employee at the time of the accident. The court emphasized that the firm had not been hired to perform any construction work. The invitation to submit an estimate did not change the firm’s status from a potential bidder to an employee. As a result, O’Sullivan was not within the class of workers that the Labor Law provisions were enacted to protect, citing Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Dev. Corp., 76 N.Y.2d 573, 576-577. The court stated that O’Sullivan is “entitled to recover only if he can establish the elements of a traditional negligence cause of action.” The court distinguished the situation from one where the firm had already been hired to perform work, stating that, in this case, the firm was in the position of a potential bidder.