Background
Ruben Herrera was working at a New York City construction site when he was injured by a load being transported by a backhoe machine. He and his wife brought suit against the City of New York and the NYC Department of Design and Construction, asserting claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The City defendants third-partied Rosedale Supply Co., LLC, which had been contracted to provide crossing guards and flag persons to control pedestrian and vehicular traffic at the site. The third-party complaint asserted indemnification and contribution claims against Rosedale.
The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the § 240(1) cause of action (New York’s “Scaffold Law”), which imposes absolute liability on owners and general contractors — and their agents — for elevation-related injuries when adequate safety devices are not provided. Rosedale cross-moved to dismiss the third-party complaint and to defeat the § 240(1) claim on the theory that Herrera’s accident was not gravity-related but rather resulted from a trip on an uneven roadway surface.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s denial of Rosedale’s cross-motion for summary judgment on both the third-party indemnification claim and the § 240(1) cause of action.
On indemnification, the court held that Rosedale failed to establish prima facie that it played no causal role in the accident: it could not demonstrate that Herrera was not among the pedestrians it was hired to control, leaving open whether its failure to direct him contributed to the injury.
On the § 240(1) Scaffold Law claim, the court found that Rosedale had established a prima facie case for summary judgment by submitting a witness affidavit averring that Herrera tripped on an uneven roadway surface and fell into the backhoe — a non-elevation-related accident that would fall outside § 240(1). However, the plaintiffs rebutted that showing by submitting Herrera’s own testimony: he averred that he did not step into a depression, but that the backhoe’s front tire entered a depression, causing the wood being transported by the machine to shift and swing toward him “with the force of gravity,” striking him in the chest.
This conflicting account of the mechanism of injury created a triable issue of fact as to whether the harm was caused by an elevation-related, gravity-driven hazard within the scope of § 240(1), warranting denial of summary judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Labor Law § 240(1) (the Scaffold Law) imposes nondelegable, absolute liability on owners, general contractors, and their agents for injuries caused by gravity-related hazards at construction sites; the central question is whether the injury is the type of elevation-related hazard the statute is designed to protect against.
- A defendant may establish a prima facie § 240(1) defense on summary judgment by showing that the injury resulted from a cause other than gravity (e.g., a trip on an uneven surface), but conflicting testimony from the injured worker as to how the incident unfolded will defeat that showing.
- The mechanism of injury matters: wood or material that moves because a machine’s tire drops into a roadway depression — causing the load to shift and fall with gravitational force — may constitute an elevation-related hazard even where the worker himself did not fall from a height.
- Contractors providing safety personnel (crossing guards, flag persons) at construction sites may face third-party indemnification exposure if they cannot establish their services played no role in the injured worker’s presence at the hazard location.
Why It Matters
New York’s Scaffold Law (Labor Law § 240(1)) remains among the broadest construction-site liability statutes in the nation, and the contours of what qualifies as a “gravity-related” injury continue to be litigated intensely. This decision illustrates that even incidents that look like simple ground-level accidents may fall within § 240(1) if the load or object causing the injury was elevated and moved under the force of gravity. Plaintiff’s construction lawyers will note the importance of preserving client testimony about the role gravity played in the mechanism of injury, and defense counsel should anticipate that a worker’s version of events — even if contradicted by a third-party witness — will ordinarily create a triable issue sufficient to defeat summary judgment.
For general contractors and project owners, the case also highlights that subcontractors with limited, non-construction roles (such as traffic-control services) may nonetheless face § 240(1) contribution exposure through third-party practice if the injured worker was within the scope of that subcontractor’s responsibilities. Safety coordination agreements and contractual indemnification provisions should be carefully drafted to address this risk.