Generally, the purpose New York’s “scaffold law” (New York Labor Law § 240(1)) is to protect construction workers from the pronounced risks arising from construction work site elevation differentials.
A recent First Department case, Jordan v. City of New York (decided March 26, 2015), illustrates that what might seem like relatively small elevation differentials can nevertheless implicate the statute, provided they are capable of generating sufficiently dangerous force.
In Jordan, the court unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court’s order granting plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim.
Citing, among other precedents, the Court of Appeals’ 2009 decision in Runner v. NY Stock Exch., Inc., the court explained:
The motion court properly rejected the City’s argument that Labor Law § 240(1) was inapplicable, because the rail that struck plaintiff did not fall from a “physically significant elevation differential.” We agree with the motion court’s finding that the pile of rails that were stacked two and one-half to three feet high was not de minimis, given the approximately 1500 pound weight of the rail and the amount of force it was capable of generating, even over the course of a relatively short descent. The harm plaintiff suffered was the direct consequence of the application of the force of gravity to the rail that struck plaintiff.
The court also addressed the issue of when the failure to secure an object implicates the statute:
What is essential to a conclusion that an object requires securing is that it present a foreseeable elevation risk in light of the work being undertaken. It was foreseeable that during hoisting, a crane could strike the stacked pile of rails causing it to fall, and therefore, the rail that struck plaintiff was an object that required securing for the purposes of the undertaking. We are not persuaded by the City’s contention that plaintiff failed to identify a necessary and expected safety device, as plaintiff demonstrated that the City could have used secure braces, stays, or even additional lines to stabilize the stacked rails.