Is The Scaffold Law's 'Strict Liability' Taking a 'Step' Down?

George M. Heymann writes: 'O'Brien v. Port Authority' appears to be an outlier among the numerous Court of Appeals decisions on the Scaffold Law. Although the majority notes that this case is one of limited application, because the staircase at issue was immovable and not subject to collapsing as are other protective devices, its determination that defendants' expert raised questions of fact sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment may have the unintended effect of opening a floodgate of defense experts in subsequent Labor Law §240(1) cases

August 01, 2017 at 02:01 PM

21 minute read

By George M. Heymann

In the past quarter century, a vast body of case law has been written about New York's Scaffold Law with varying results for the injured workers seeking relief under this statute.¹

The first paragraph of §240(1) of the Labor Law contains two distinct criteria, each of which comes into play when an injured worker seeks recovery under this statute. In relevant part, Labor Law §240(1) reads as follows:

All contractors and owners and their agents, … [1] in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure [2] shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected for the purpose of such labor, scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to a person so employed. (bracketed numbers added) (emphasis added)