Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

In March 2016, Carlos Ochoa sustained injuries when he fell from an A-frame ladder at a building owned by the defendant JEM Real Estate Co., LLC.  Ochoa was attempting to install an aluminum sign above a commercial storefront. Plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants, alleging violations of Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6).  Following discovery, the Ochoa moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law 240(1). The Court granted that branch of plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on that issue.

In order to recover under Labor Law 240(1), “[the] plaintiff must establish that the statute was violated and that the violation was a proximate cause of her injuries,” as well as establish that the injuries occurred ‘during the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, cleaning, or pointing of a building or structure.” Contrary to the defendant’s argument, Ochoa established their injuries were proximately caused by a ladder that was defective and inadequately secured. But for the ladder not being defective, the plaintiff would not have been hurt.

It is significant to note for our purposes that in this matter, the evidence presented by the defendant was not sufficient to prove that the injuries sustained by Ochoa were his fault, and only his fault. In cases where we have an alleged violation of Labor Law 240(1), we must be able to prove in some way that the injuries were the fault of the plaintiff. We must try and disprove that any equipment, such as a ladder, was in fact not faulty and was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. This case is helpful because it shows us the standard which we must meet to prove that the plaintiff was in fact the proximate cause of his own injuries.