A Nexus between Laws: Where Labor Laws §240(1) and §241(6) Overlap
By: Robert P. Valletti
Despite the fact that cases often allege violations of both Labor Laws §240(1) and §241(6), there are vast differences between the two statutes, such as when one section will aply and the other will not, or even in their general application under the law once it is determined which one (or both) applies to a given set of facts. There are even greater differences in the proof required under each section to show a violation and ultimately win a verdict.
There are times, however, where an injured worker’s accident is simultaneously and coextensively covered by both sections of the law, and one instance is where a worker suffers a fall through an unguarded (or improperly guarded) opening. One example comes in the recently decided case Norero v. 99-105 Third Avenue Realty, LLC. In Norero, the defendant 99-105 Third Avenue Realty, LLC owned a multi-story building. They hired a general contractor who subcontracted with another company to perform the “interior core and shell work.” The third-party defendant, JLC Corp. performed asbestos removal work. The plaintiff, an employee of JLC, sustained injuries when, while working on the fifth floor of the building, he partially fell from a height into an unprotected opening in the floor that was large enough for his body to have passed through.
The Second Department, hearing an appeal by the plaintiff for denial of his summary judgment motion, analyzed Labor Laws §240 and §241(6) by first defining what a plaintiff must prove in order to win under these sections, then applied the facts of the case to the laws as they stood in one simple step, as the incident which caused the plaintiff’s injuries showed a clear violation of both statutes. First, the Court notes Labor Law § 240(1) imposes upon owners and general contractors, and their agents, a non-delegable duty to provide safety devices necessary to protect workers from risks inherent in elevated work sites. The Court then stated that Labor Law § 241(6) imposes upon owners and general contractors, and their agents, a non-delegable duty to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety for workers, and to comply with the specific safety rules and regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of the Department of Labor. The specific safety rule promulgated by the Commissioner which was applicable in Norero was 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)(1)(i), which states “Every hazardous opening into which a person may step or fall shall be guarded by a substantial cover fastened in place or by a safety railing constructed and installed in compliance with this Part (rule).”
The Court found that the plaintiff was not provided with proper protection under Labor Law § 240(1) because he suffered injuries due to risks inherent in elevated worksites AND, in addition, that the failure to provide such protection also violated Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)(1)(i).
The failure to provide the plaintiff with proper protection against a fall through an unguarded (or improperly guarded) opening was the proximate cause of his alleged injuries, thus establishing the plaintiff’s right to recovery under both statutes.
If you have been injured due to a fall through an unguarded opening 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!
