65 N.Y.2d 513 (1985)
Under New York Labor Law § 240(1), an owner or contractor is absolutely liable for injuries sustained by a worker when they fail to provide any safety devices at a building worksite, and this failure is the proximate cause of the injury.
Summary
These consolidated cases concern the liability of owners and contractors under New York Labor Law § 240(1) for failing to provide safety devices at construction sites. In Zimmer, an ironworker was injured when he fell while erecting a steel skeleton. In Hunt, an ironworker fell from a roof while welding. In both cases, no safety devices were provided. The Court of Appeals held that an owner or contractor is absolutely liable under § 240(1) when they fail to provide any safety devices, and that failure proximately causes a worker’s injuries. Evidence of industry custom or the feasibility of safety devices is irrelevant when no devices are provided at all.
Facts
Zimmer:
Plaintiff, an ironworker, was injured while erecting a steel skeleton for a building addition.
He scaled a 31-foot column to direct a crane operator.
He lost his grip and fell, striking a beam and landing in an excavation.
No safety devices were provided, though ladders were present but not used for his specific task.
Hunt:
Plaintiff, an ironworker, fell 25 feet from a flat roof while welding corrugated decking.
No safety devices were provided.
Defendants presented evidence of industry custom and usage, arguing safety devices were not typically used on this type of building.
Procedural History
Zimmer:
The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict, and the jury found for the defendants. The Appellate Division affirmed.
Hunt:
The trial court reserved decision on the plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict and submitted the case to the jury. The jury found no cause of action. The trial court then granted the plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict on liability, which the Appellate Division affirmed.
The Court of Appeals consolidated the cases and reversed the Appellate Division in Zimmer and affirmed in Hunt.
Issue(s)
Whether an owner or contractor is liable under Labor Law § 240(1) when they fail to provide any safety devices at a construction site, and that failure is the proximate cause of a worker’s injuries.
Holding
Yes, because Labor Law § 240(1) imposes absolute liability on owners and contractors who fail to provide any safety devices to workers at a construction site when such failure proximately causes injury, irrespective of industry custom or the feasibility of such devices. The statute’s purpose is to protect workers by placing ultimate responsibility for safety on owners and contractors.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the legislative history of the Labor Law demonstrates an intent to protect workers by placing ultimate responsibility for safety on owners and contractors. The Court emphasized that § 240(1) is to be construed liberally to accomplish this purpose. The Court distinguished between violations of specific statutory provisions like § 240(1) and violations of administrative rules promulgated under § 241(6). A violation of § 240(1), which contains specific safety measures, creates absolute liability, while a violation of § 241(6) does not. In cases where no safety devices are provided, industry custom and usage are immaterial. Evidence of custom and usage is admissible under sections 200 and 241(6) to determine the standard of care in a negligence context, but not for a section 240(1) violation because this section establishes its own unvarying standard. The court quoted Quigley v Thatcher, 207 N.Y. 66, 68, stating that the statute “is one for the protection of workmen from injury and undoubtedly is to be construed as liberally as may be for the accomplishment of the purpose for which it was thus framed.” The dissent argued that the statute should not impose liability when no safety devices were available or adaptable to the situation, and that proximate cause is a necessary element that is a jury question.