Coworker Was “Looking at Girls” Instead of Ladder-Fall Plaintiff; Summary Judgment for Plaintiff on Labor Law 240(1)/Ladder Fall Claim Affirmed

In Ward v. Urban Horizons II Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. (NY App. Div. 1st Dept. May 7, 2015), the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed summary judgment for plaintiff on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim.

Here are the facts of this personal injury/construction accident case:

Plaintiff commenced this lawsuit seeking to recover for personal injuries sustained on July 2, 2008, while installing lighting in a new apartment building under construction at 1330 Intervale Avenue in the Bronx. Plaintiff, standing atop an A-frame ladder, was attempting to drill a hole through an I-beam in preparation for the installation of exterior lighting. The work required the use of two hands, so plaintiff did not have a hand available to hold onto the ladder. Plaintiff testified that as he was drilling, the bit became stuck. Plaintiff lost control of the drill, causing him to fall backward off the ladder and onto the floor. It is undisputed that no equipment was provided to plaintiff to guard against the risk of falling from the ladder while operating the drill, and that plaintiff’s coworker was not stabilizing the ladder at the time of the fall.

In upholding summary judgment for plaintiff, the court reasoned that “[p]laintiff’s testimony that he fell from the ladder while performing drilling work established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim.”

Furthermore, in explaining why “defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning the manner in which the accident occurred or whether the A-frame ladder provided adequate protection”, the court explained:

The coworker’s testimony that he heard neither plaintiff nor the drill fall to the floor does not raise a triable issue of fact. Plaintiff’s coworker admittedly did not witness the fall from the ladder. At the time the accident occurred, he testified that he was looking at “girls . . . outside the window.” He did not dispute that plaintiff was standing on the ladder, was using a drill, and that the sound of the drill suddenly stopped. He also testified that when he turned around, he observed plaintiff on the floor with the drill at a distance from him. Defendants’ arguments concerning the inferences a jury could draw from the coworker’s testimony constitute nothing more than impermissible speculation insufficient to defeat summary judgment. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the accident happened other than as testified to by plaintiff, making this case distinguishable from those relied on by defendants. (Emphasis added.)

Share This: