New York Labor Law § 240(1) is a very important statute, as it provides significant protections to workers who are exposed to gravity-related risks without being provided with adequate safety devices.
However, in order for its considerable protections to kick in, it must be determined, in the first instance, whether it applies. Labor Law § 240(1) provides, in pertinent part:
All contractors and owners and their agents … in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected for the performance of such labor, scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to a person so employed. (Emphasis added.)
In Soriano v. St. Mary’s Indian Orthodox Church of Rockland, Inc. (decided June 17, 2014), the Appellate Division, First Department addressed the crucial question of whether the plaintiff was engaged in “repair” (which is actionable under the statute) or “routine maintenance” (which is not).
The court held that plaintiff was indeed engaged in “repair” work, and was entitled to summary judgment on liability. Here are the facts of this construction accident case:
Plaintiff is a glazier with approximately 43 years of experience[.] He and three coworkers were sent by his employer to replace cracked glass panels in the skylight of defendant church’s steeple. To access the steeple, plaintiff and his coworkers placed a 12 or 14 foot extension ladder belonging to their employer on top of the roof of the church and leaned it up against the steeple. Plaintiff had used the ladder on three prior occasions and found it to be in good condition. As plaintiff climbed the ladder, the bottom kicked out, moving away from the steeple wall. Both the ladder and plaintiff fell approximately 20 feet straight to the roof below, causing plaintiff to sustain injuries.
Plaintiff sued, alleging among other things that “defendant violated Labor Law § 240(1) by failing to provide him with an adequate ladder and by failing to provide any safety harnesses or belts that would have prevented his fall.”
Defendant argued that plaintiff’s work was not covered by the statute as a matter of law, because at the time of the accident plaintiff was not “altering” or “repairing” the premises, but rather was performing “routine maintenance.”
Plaintiff countered with his own affidavit
asserting that, based on his many years of experience as a glazier, skylight panels such as the ones he was replacing do not “crack” or “wear out” over time and “could have remained in place without repair or replacement indefinitely” unless some unusual event caused them to crack or break. Plaintiff further asserted that the three cracked panels made the skylight useless, as “water and other elements” could pass through the cracks, causing further damage to the panels as well as the interior of the steeple.
After considering the parties’ arguments and legal standards for recovering under Labor Law § 240(1), the court sided with plaintiff:
The crux of this case involves the question of whether plaintiff was involved in repair or maintenance work. “Essentially, routine maintenance for purposes of the statute is work that does not rise to the level of an enumerated term such as repairing or altering” [Citation omitted]. In distinguishing between what constitutes repair as opposed to routine maintenance, courts will consider such factors as “whether the work in question was occasioned by an isolated event as opposed to a recurring condition” [citation omitted]; whether the object being replaced was “a worn-out component” in something that was otherwise “operable” [citation omitted]); and whether the device or component that was being fixed or replaced was intended to have a limited life span or to require periodic adjustment or replacement [citation omitted].
Here, plaintiff described the panes as being constructed of “heavy plate glass” with wire running through them and stated that they simply “do not crack or wear out over time.” Plaintiff showed, without contradiction, that these panes were not being replaced as a result of normal wear and tear, as they were not expected to be regularly replaced. In fact, defendant presented no evidence that the panes ever had to be replaced or repaired from the time the steeple had been built. As an experienced glazier with over 30 years of experience, plaintiff was more than competent to state that the replacement of these panes constituted repair work, and was not routine maintenance.
In sum, plaintiff made out a prima facie case on the issue of liability, and defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.