Background
Scott A. Delisle was performing construction work at a commercial premises in Erie County owned by FBBT/US Properties, LLC and leased to CSL Plasma Inc. Barker Contracting served as general contractor. Delisle’s employer supplied A-frame ladders for the job. That morning, Delisle used a six-foot ladder without incident, placing underlayment beneath its feet to protect newly installed tile.
After lunch, Delisle found a CSL employee named John using his ladder. John had modified it by duct-taping tube socks over all four rubber feet — apparently to prevent scuffing the tiles. John directed Delisle to use the modified ladder. While ascending, the ladder slid forward; Delisle grabbed the rungs, felt pain shoot through his left arm, and fell. He sued under Labor Law § 240(1) — New York’s strict-liability “Scaffold Law,” which imposes absolute liability on owners and general contractors when an elevation-related hazard causes a worker’s injury.
The Court’s Holding
A three-to-two majority reversed and granted Delisle partial summary judgment. The majority held that the sock modification rendered the ladder unable to “remain steady and erect” as required, constituting a statutory violation. The fact that the ladder was structurally sound was irrelevant — the issue was improper placement. Citing Alati v Divin Bldrs., Inc. (137 AD3d 1577 [4th Dept 2016]), “the fact that the ladder failed and plaintiff fell to the ground demonstrates that it was not so placed . . . as to give proper protection.”
The majority also rejected the sole-proximate-cause defense. That defense requires showing the plaintiff “chose for no good reason” not to use an available, safe alternative. Here, a CSL employee explicitly instructed Delisle to use the sock-covered ladder. Citing Finocchi v Live Nation Inc. (204 AD3d 1432 [4th Dept 2022]), Delisle “was under no obligation to demand safer methods.” Two justices dissented, pointing to discrepancies between Delisle’s deposition and earlier workers’ compensation filings.
Key Takeaways
- Any modification to a ladder’s feet that impairs grip is a Labor Law § 240(1) violation — even well-intentioned modifications like socks to protect flooring.
- A sole-proximate-cause defense fails when a worker uses a defective device because a co-worker directed him to do so, even informally.
- The 3-2 split signals that fact-intensive Scaffold Law cases turn heavily on credibility and witness corroboration.
Why It Matters
New York’s Scaffold Law imposes the strictest construction-liability regime in the nation. Delisle illustrates how even a low-tech alteration — pulling socks over ladder feet to protect a floor — can trigger strict liability for owners, tenants, and general contractors. Contractors and insurers should train all site personnel, including tenants’ employees, never to modify safety equipment.
The decision also reinforces that “structural soundness” is beside the point once improper placement or modification is established. Owners and GCs should focus discovery on the nature and source of any modification and on whether the worker had a genuine choice.