Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

<p style="text-align: justify;">Plaintiffs have come to rely on the strict liability imposed by Labor Law 240 to secure high settlements/verdicts.  However, the case below demonstrates that not every complaint that comes in with allegations of Labor Law violations is grounds for concern.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In<em> <a href="https://www.wcmlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Djuric-v.-City-of-New-York.pdf">Djuric v. City of New York</a>, </em> a pollution control plant that had previously sustained fire damage was undergoing renovation work.  The plaintiff was employed by the steamfitting subcontractor hired to perform mechanical work in the building.  While working, the plaintiff was struck in the back of the neck by a pipe saddle that came lose from an overhead pipe hanger.  All of the defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 and 241(6) claims.  The lower court granted the motion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The First Department affirmed the decision, finding that the pipe saddle did not constitute a “falling object” under Labor Law 240 because it was not in the process of being hoisted or secured and there was no evidence that the pipe saddle fell because of the absence of a safety device.  The appellate court further noted that the pipe saddle was a permanent part of the structure and that its defect was latent and, as such, the defendants could not have known of its potential condition prior to the accident.  Finally, the Court held that the Industrial Code cited by the plaintiff under Labor Law section 241(6) was inapplicable because this object that fell from above was not part of the construction debris but, rather, was a fixture of the building which became dislodged.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In other words, because the object that fell from above was not installed, altered, or in any way tampered with during the construction, the Court in the above case analyzed the defendants’ potential liability exposure through the lens of a premises liability action rather than scrutinizing it more strictly under the Labor Law’s guidelines.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Thank you to <a href="mailto:madamczak@wcmlaw.com">Margaret Adamczak</a> for her contribution to this post.</p>
&nbsp;