The Pendulum Continues Its Swing: Suffolk County Judge Overturns Jury Verdict to Grant Injured Worker Judgment Pursuant to Labor Law §240(1)
By Robert Valletti
Plaintiff-side personal injury lawyers jump at the opportunity to file law suits in Plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions such as Bronx or Kings County. As one moves further out on Long Island, however, things begin to change. Juries become more and more reluctant to hold absentee general contractors and owners liable regardless of Labor Law §240’s “strict liability” provision which ultimately places liability upon entities that may not even be on site at the time of the accident.
Justice William Rebolini, however, of the Suffolk County Supreme Court in Central Islip, may have lightened up some of the previously dark opinions about Suffolk County through his opinion in Schwarz v. Valente.
Schwarz involved a plaintiff who sustained injuries while replacing the roof of a three-family dwelling on September 19, 2006. The plaintiff fell from the roof of the defendants’ premises when, as he attempted to get on his ladder to descend from the roof, hestepped on a soft or rotted patch of roof which gave away and caught his left heel, resulting in his loss of balance and fall to the ground.The case went to the jury which determined that the defendants violated Labor Law §240(1) by failing to provide adequate safety devices and that as owners, the defendants had a non-delegable duty to provide safety devices under the “Scaffold Law.” The jury, however, found that although there were inadequate safety devices available for the plaintiff, such a violation in this instance was not a substantial factor of the plaintiff’s fall.
Justice Rebolini held “the jury’s finding against plaintiff on the question of whether defendants §240(1) violation was a substantial factor in the accident is irrational and unsupported by sufficient evidence and that no fair interpretation of the evidence could support the verdict.” He further opined that the jury’s finding, i.e. that the construction site lacked proper safety devices, is “inextricably intertwined” with the question of causation such that affirmatively finding inadequate safety devices (a clear violation of Labor Law §240) “necessarily entailed” the violation being a substantial factor in the accident. Relying on Cammon v. City of New York, Justice Rebolini directed the verdict in favor of the Plaintiff, concluding “[t]he only inference to be drawn from the evidence at trial is that the failure to provide adequate safety devices is a proximate cause of plaintiff’s accident and injury.”
It is noteworthy that Justice Rebolini overturned a jury verdict in a Suffolk County Supreme Court case to find in favor of a plaintiff. While his decision is well reasoned and seemingly supported by both the facts and the case law cited, the implications of this case show that the proverbial pendulum (which in recent years has been swinging in favor of the Plaintiff) is not only swinging in the pro-Plaintiff jurisdictions but even where Defense attorneys have felt more comfortable defending cases.
If you have been injured by due to a fall while working at a construction site, call the Construction Site Accident Attorneys at 1-888-GINARTE today. You may be entitled to money for your injuries. We have 25 experienced Construction Site Accident attorneys ready to get started on your case today. Put our 150 years of combined experience to work for you!
