Stallone v. Plaza Construction Corp. and the “Only/Sole Means” Doctrine
There is a concept in New York Labor Law §240(1) known as the “sole means” or “only means” doctrine which basically states that is the equipment or method used during a construction activity is the only means by which the work could have been completed, then the activity will be governed by Labor Law §240(1) if there has been a gravity related injury proximately caused by the equipment or method’s failure to provide proper protection to the worker.
This concept was recently affirmed in the Stallone v. Plaza Construction Corp. case. In Stallone, the plaintiff climbed a fixed ladder of a tower crane to begin work one morning to find that there was no heat or lights in the cab of the crane. The plaintiff exited the cab of the crane, stepped onto a small platform, and descended a round steel rung ladder with flat bar rungs and 1-inch side railings that needed to be approached from the side. He placed his foot on the first rung, slipped and fell approximately 15 feet, hitting his back on the steel deck of the tower’s platform. He returned to work the next day and for approximately 3 months thereafter. The injuries sustained ultimately rendered the plaintiff’s left arm useless after surgery was performed.
With respect to the New York Labor Law 240(1) claim, Judge Oing in the Supreme Court of New York County held that Section 240(1) applied in this instance because the affixed ladder was the only means the plaintiff had to access the cab, citing Crimi v. Neves Assocs., 306 A.D.2d 152 (1st Dep’t 2003) in support of this proposition. Ultimately, the ladder proved inadequate to protect the plaintiff from harms flowing directly from the application of the force of gravity, and that his injuries were at least partially attributable to the defendants’ failure to take mandated safety measures to protect the plaintiff from elevation related risks.
The First Department in Stallone reasons that the access ladder was a covered device under Labor Law 240(1) because it was the only means by which the plaintiff could reach his elevated work level. What this means, in laymen’s terms, is that the ladder was provided as the sole means for the plaintiff to access an elevated work area, and during the ladder’s use the plaintiff was subject to inherent gravity-related risks. His fall from the ladder thus showed the ladder inadequately protecting him against these risks, establishing a case for 240(1). The same result could occur in falling object cases, where if the means by which the work is being performed is shown to be the only way the work could have been completed, and there is a failure to protect the workers from an inherent gravity-related risk, a violation of the statute will be established.
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!
