Background
Julio Ochoa, a licensed plumber working at a Bronx housing development, was injured while using an extension ladder to travel between the first floor and a basement garage entrance. Ochoa was descending the ladder — which had been placed by another worker and was used by him and others to move between floors — when it suddenly slid backwards and fell, causing him to fall to the ground with it. He was on his way to the basement to retrieve materials needed for the ongoing sprinkler installation work.
Ochoa brought suit against 3475 Third Avenue Housing Development Fund Corporation and related defendants under Labor Law § 240(1) — New York’s Scaffold Law. The Supreme Court, Bronx County granted Ochoa’s motion for summary judgment on liability and denied defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss the § 240(1) and § 241(6) claims. Defendants appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The First Department unanimously affirmed. Ochoa established a prima facie § 240(1) case through his testimony: he fell when an unsecured extension ladder slid and collapsed under him — a classic ladder-fall scenario implicating absolute liability under the Scaffold Law.
Defendants raised two notable arguments in opposition, both of which the court rejected. First, they contended that Ochoa’s trip to the basement to retrieve materials was not covered activity under § 240(1). The First Department disagreed: duties ancillary to enumerated acts — such as retrieving materials for ongoing sprinkler installation work — constitute protected activity under the statute. Fetching materials integral to an enumerated task is not outside the Scaffold Law’s protection merely because the worker is not at that moment engaged in the task itself.
Second, defendants argued that Ochoa’s own acts were the sole proximate cause of the accident. The court found that defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact on this defense, reaffirming that an unsecured ladder that slides on its own does not implicate the sole-proximate-cause doctrine.
Key Takeaways
- Labor Law § 240(1) covers duties ancillary to enumerated construction tasks — a worker retrieving materials for ongoing work is protected even if not actively performing an enumerated act at the moment of injury.
- An extension ladder that slides and collapses while a worker is descending establishes a prima facie Scaffold Law violation; the burden then shifts to defendants to show a statutory defense.
- The sole-proximate-cause defense requires triable evidence of conduct by the plaintiff that was the exclusive cause of the accident; generalized assertions are insufficient.
Why It Matters
The “ancillary activities” holding is practically significant for the plaintiffs’ bar. Property owners and contractors frequently argue that workers injured while moving between floors or fetching materials were not engaged in the kind of work the Scaffold Law was meant to protect. This decision reaffirms that the statute’s protection extends to workers traveling to obtain the materials necessary for covered tasks — not just to those directly hammering, bolting, or welding at a height at the moment of injury. The ruling reinforces that § 240(1) should be read broadly to achieve its remedial purpose.
For construction defendants, the case is a reminder that the sole-proximate-cause defense requires affirmative factual support. A ladder that simply slides out from under a descending worker does not, without more, suggest the worker did anything wrong. Defendants need specific evidence of unreasonable conduct to invoke that defense successfully.