Andrew V. Siracuse, J.S.C.: Labor Law

Labor Law in New York has little to do with collective bargaining; that is a Federal matter. The most-litigated sections of the Labor Law deal with employers' and owners' liability to construction workers injured on the job. Section 200 is a restatement of common law negligence principles. Section 241(6) allows certain construction workers to sue the property owner or general contractor when they have been injured by another's negligence. Section 240(1), the "Scaffold Law', has been interpreted as imposing absolute liability on owners and contractors when a worker is injured in a gravity-related accident.

The rules our courts have developed are complicated, and have been changing so rapidly that this area of the law is filled with confusion and uncertainty.

Thorough overviews of the sections and their interpretation have been prepared by four talented attorneys for use in the 1999 Judicial Seminars. I am most grateful to them for agreeing to make these outlines available in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format on this site. They are:

Thomas F. Segalla and Katherine B. Roach, of Saperston & Day, P.C., in Buffalo, who wrote on Section 200.
D. Carl Lustig, III, from Arye, Kors, Lustig & Sassower, P.C., in New York, who contributed pieces on the historical development of Section 240 (1) and on liens under Worker's Compensation Law § 29.
Carol R. Finocchio, of New York, who wrote on current judicial interpretations of Section 240 (1).
Daniel R. Santola, of Powers and Santola, in Albany, writing on Section 241 (6).

Daniel Santola has also contributed a detailed (sixty-eight page!) summary of Labor Law decisions under all sections for 1998 and 1999. This extensive .pdf document is invaluable, and I thank him for it.

Proposals to amend or eliminate the Scaffold Law are increasing, and I have recently discussed them in an article which first appeared in the New York Law Journal.

Some thoughts which grew out of the Secord decision listed below are contained in From Absolute to Relative Liability: Recent Changes in the Scaffold Law, and its sequal on the recalcitrant worker defense. Shorter versions of both these articles have appeared in the New York Law Journal.

The "falling object" aspect of section 240 liability has been dramatically changed by the Court of Appeals, and in an April, 2002, article I discussed the way the pendulum has swung back.

While sections 240 and 241 generate the bulk of Labor Law litigation, some recent Third Department rulings construing Section 202 gave rise to The Window Washers' Dilemma, another article which has also appeared in the Law Journal. This issue was addressed by the Court of Appeals in March, 2002, and I have written another article to bring the account up to date, Bauer redux: of window-washers, statutes, and rules, which was published in the Law Journal on June 11, 2002.

I had written earlier on changes in the interpretation of Section 241(6). My law clerk has contributed a note on Section 240(1) called the "Scaffold Law"; and my caseload continues to offer the opportunity to interpret and reconsider this intriguing body of law:

Piccolo v St. John's Home (April 11, 2003) -- In a freak accident, a worker is flung into the air and then falls thanks to a sudden jut of water from the hose he was holding. This is not a "fall from a height" for Labor Law purposes.

Derrick v Shaw (April 11, 2003) -- Common law indemnification between two parties vicariously liable was appropriate.

Scott v Crystal Construction et al. (February 5, 2003) -- Why utility pole owners are not necessarily owners under the Labor Law; and a discussion of the scope of the recalcitrant worker defense.

Lacy v DeMarco (July 18, 2002) -- A prime contractor who subcontracts part of the work is not automatically liable under § 240 (1).

Szymonek v DiMarco (March 1, 2002) --Standards of proof and the evidentiary showing required to defeat a summary judgment motion for an unwitnessed accident.

Watts v Benderson (March 4, 2002) --Some common defense arguments and why they fail to address the relevant issues in a Scaffold Law case

Corrado v Allied Plastics (October 31, 2000) -- A chance to revisit the issues raised in Secord and my two articles, and some material on contractual indemnification, as well.

Secord v Willow Ridge Stables (January 13, 1999) -- A case discussing several recent developments in Section 240 (1) jurisprudence, including the Court of Appeals' decision in Weininger v Hagedorn and Co.

Alebaugh v Parkway Partnership (September 24, 1998) -- Is a worker who trips while wearing stilts covered under § 240(1)? This case also contains section 200 and 241 issues, and was affirmed for reasons stated by the Appellate Division on October 1, 1999.

Seymour v Victor Balata Belting (174 Misc2d 677, 665 NYS2d 1010, September 16, 1997), deals with an intriguing aspect of the recent limitations on indemnification actions: is the relevant date the date of the accident or the date of commencement of the action? The court's answer was rejected by the Court of Appeals, in Majewski v Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist., and the case reproduced here is therefore of academic interest only.

What qualifies as an indemnification clause was considered in Keys v DiMarco (August 30, 2000).

Lynch v Immaculate Conception (August 8, 1997), considers the Scaffold Law's exemption for owners of single family residences in the case of a church building where a priest lives: when is a rectory not a rectory?

McCloud v Rochester Gas & Electric (June 10, 1993) -- What is an "elevated work surface"? This decision was reversed but may be illuminating anyway.

Rothschild v Faber Homes (October 10, 1996) -- What is the liability standard for an employer who sends a crew out while a storm is in progress? This case was affirmed by the Appellate Division in February, 1998.

Briggs v Bierworth (November 13, 1996) -- Is a staircase a ladder for § 240 purposes? And what kind of notice is required of a dangerous condition before there can be liability?

Peterson v Barry, Bette & Led Duke (May 2, 1996) -- a thorough overview of the recalcitrant worker defense. Reported at 171 Misc 2d 346.

INDEX