Background
Robert Woodward, a construction worker, was injured at a Manhattan job site when he tripped on a cutout or inlay in the floor immediately after stepping out of the only available staircase leading to a mezzanine level. Witnesses described the area as a hallway or corridor connecting two much larger spaces, and Woodward himself testified that he had to walk through it to reach his assigned work area. Scaffolding or other materials on the sides of the corridor may have narrowed it further.
Woodward brought claims under Labor Law § 241(6), predicated on Industrial Code 12 NYCRR § 23-1.7(e)(1), which requires passageways at construction sites to be kept free of conditions that could cause tripping. The Supreme Court, New York County denied Woodward’s motion for summary judgment on the § 241(6) claim but also granted defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss that claim. Woodward appealed the dismissal; defendants cross-appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The First Department modified the order, reinstating the Labor Law § 241(6) claim and denying defendants’ summary judgment as to that claim. The dismissal was reversed.
The central question was whether the area where Woodward fell constituted a “passageway” under 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(1). The court found that questions of fact precluded summary judgment for defendants on this point. Witness testimony consistently described the space as a hallway or corridor connecting two larger areas, and Woodward testified it was the route workers used to reach their assigned workspace. Whether the space qualified as a passageway — as opposed to an open work area — presented a disputed factual issue for the jury.
Defendants also argued that the floor inlay was “integral to the work” being performed and therefore could not give rise to liability. The First Department rejected this argument as a matter of law, applying Bazdaric v. Almah Partners LLC (41 NY3d 310 [2024]), the Court of Appeals’ recent decision limiting the integral-to-work doctrine. The record did not establish that any active work was being done on the floor inlay at the time of the accident, so the doctrine did not bar plaintiff’s claim.
Key Takeaways
- Under Labor Law § 241(6), whether a space at a construction site is a “passageway” subject to 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(1) is a question of fact when witness testimony and the worker’s own account describe it as a hallway or corridor connecting work areas.
- The integral-to-work doctrine does not bar a § 241(6) claim as a matter of law unless the record establishes that active work was being performed on the allegedly hazardous condition at the time of the accident — Bazdaric v. Almah Partners (2024) limits the doctrine’s reach.
- Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(1) imposes liability for “conditions which could cause tripping,” not only for debris — a floor inlay in a passageway can qualify.
Why It Matters
New York’s Labor Law § 241(6) Scaffold Law claims predicated on the Industrial Code’s passageway provision (§ 23-1.7(e)(1)) turn heavily on site geography — specifically, whether the area where a worker fell was a defined passageway or merely an open work floor. This decision illustrates that narrow corridors leading from staircases to work areas, even where potentially wider than a typical hallway, can present a genuine fact question requiring a trial.
Equally important is the court’s application of Bazdaric to the integral-to-work doctrine. After the Court of Appeals limited that doctrine in 2024, courts have been working out its boundaries. Here, the First Department confirms that defendants cannot invoke the doctrine without a record showing actual, ongoing work on the allegedly hazardous condition at the moment of the accident. Construction owners and general contractors defending § 241(6) claims should take note: the integral-to-work defense requires specific factual support, not just a general connection between the hazard and the construction project.