Background
Roberto Hernandez, a construction worker, was injured at a job site when he fell from a ladder while attempting to descend to the basement. The ladder shifted rapidly to the right, causing him to fall. Hernandez brought suit against site owner Bushwick Realty Holdings LLC and others under New York’s Scaffold Law — Labor Law § 240(1) — which imposes absolute liability on owners and general contractors for gravity-related injuries suffered by construction workers when adequate safety devices are not provided or prove inadequate to protect against the elevation-related risk.
The case took on complexity in discovery when Hernandez gave somewhat contradictory deposition testimony about how he was descending the ladder: he initially stated he was facing the rungs with both hands on the handrails, but later testified he was descending facing away from the ladder with only his right hand on it. Second-third-party defendant Capital Concrete NY Inc. moved for summary judgment, arguing that this contradictory testimony raised an issue of fact and that Hernandez’s manner of descent made him the sole proximate cause of his own injuries. Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied Capital Concrete’s motion and granted Hernandez’s cross-motion for summary judgment on § 240(1) liability. Capital Concrete appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed. The court held that Hernandez made a prima facie showing for summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim through his deposition testimony that the ladder “rapidly” moved to the right causing him to fall — an inadequate safety device causing a gravity-related injury. The fact that the ladder had been “secured at both the top and the bottom,” and that Hernandez did not know whether the ladder detached from those secured points, did not defeat the claim, because a plaintiff is not required to prove the ladder was defective — only that it failed to provide adequate protection.
More significantly, the court firmly rejected the sole-proximate-cause defense. Under § 240(1), comparative negligence is not a defense: even if Hernandez descended the ladder facing away from the rungs with only one hand on the railing, that conduct constitutes at most comparative negligence — insufficient to eliminate liability. Furthermore, the contradictions in his testimony about the manner of descent were immaterial to the § 240(1) analysis: regardless of which version of his descent was true, the ladder moved suddenly and caused him to fall, which is all the statute requires.
Key Takeaways
- Under Labor Law § 240(1), a worker is not required to prove that the ladder was defective — only that it failed to prevent a gravity-related injury; a sudden, unexplained shift of the ladder establishes prima facie entitlement to summary judgment.
- Contradictory testimony about the manner of descent does not create a triable issue of fact on § 240(1) where the undisputed fact is that the ladder moved and the worker fell — inconsistencies in peripheral details do not defeat the central gravity-risk inquiry.
- Comparative negligence — including descending a ladder facing away from the rungs with one hand — is not a defense to § 240(1) and cannot support a sole-proximate-cause argument; the statute’s absolute liability reflects a deliberate legislative policy.
- Defendants relying on the sole-proximate-cause defense must demonstrate that the plaintiff’s conduct was the only substantial cause of the accident and that the safety device was otherwise adequate — a very high bar that the court has consistently applied strictly.
Why It Matters
New York’s Scaffold Law (Labor Law § 240(1)) is among the most plaintiff-friendly construction-injury statutes in the country, and this decision illustrates why. By holding that even faced-away descent with one hand on the railing cannot rise to sole proximate cause — and that contradictory testimony about peripheral details does not defeat summary judgment — the court reinforces that § 240(1) is intended to be broadly construed in favor of workers. For owners and general contractors in New York, the message is consistent: the cost of inadequate safety equipment is absolute liability, not a comparative-fault apportionment.
For defense counsel in scaffold law cases, the decision also signals continued difficulty with the sole-proximate-cause defense when the ladder itself fails regardless of how the plaintiff was using it. Defendants must focus on whether there is a truly adequate safety device being deliberately disregarded — not simply an imperfect manner of use. For plaintiffs’ counsel, the case confirms that prompt deposition of the injured worker on the key fact (the ladder moved) is sufficient to carry summary judgment, even if other details of the accident are disputed.