Granted, there are instances, such as where a construction worker trips over a doorknob, which I do not believe that New York's construction worker safety statutes (which are primarily Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1) and 241(6)). 

"Why?" You ask. Because a  doorknob isn't what I consider to be a construction-related hazard.

Of course, that raises the question of where the line between what is - and isn't - a construction-related hazard.

With that introduction, I don't think the Court's decision in this case, San Pietro v. NY Times Building, LLC, which appears in today's edition of the New York Law Journal, has that particular problem.

Here's why:

Because a 2 x 4 cinderblock is, at least to my mind, a construction-related hazard.

And that's why I have no problem with the Court's holding in this case that the defendant building owner could be held liable for this worker's injuries under Labor Law §241(6), because there was a violation of a specific Industrial Code section - namely §23-1.7(e)(2) - which requires that floors and platforms should be kept free of dirt and debris.

For additional information on this topic, please see "How Site Owners Can Be Held Absolutely Liable in a NY Construction Accident Case."

Jonathan Cooper
Connect with me
Non-Compete, Trade Secret, Unfair Competition and School Negligence Lawyer
Post A Comment