New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7
In Martinez v. Turner Construction Company, the Supreme Court of New York County ruled on competing motions for summary judgment in a construction accident case involving a falling plank. The court found that the injured worker established a valid claim under Labor Law § 240(1) and denied both parties’ motions regarding Labor Law § 241(6), allowing the case to continue.
Background Facts
On October 10, 2014, Bayron Martinez was working at a construction site located at the former Saint Vincent Medical Campus in Manhattan. West Village Residences, LLC owned the property, and Turner Construction Company served as the construction manager. Turner subcontracted masonry work to GEM Roofing and Waterproofing, which employed Martinez as a pointer, caulker, and cleaner.
That day, Martinez was assigned to perform work on the eighth floor. There was a hoist elevator used to transport workers between floors, and scaffolding had been constructed around the building. The eighth floor had completed scaffolding, while the ninth floor scaffolding was still under construction. Two GEM employees, Piotr Pekula and Joel Guerrero, were installing wooden planks for the ninth-floor scaffold at the time of the incident.
Martinez took the elevator to the eighth floor and exited to the landing. As he did so, a wooden plank fell from above and struck him in the head. Guerrero had attempted to place the plank across two metal scaffold pipes but misjudged the gap. The plank fell approximately four to five feet and hit Martinez. Guerrero admitted that he saw Martinez below and warned him, but he was unsure if Martinez heard him.
Pekula testified that Guerrero tried to set the plank without assistance and that it slipped when he failed to land it correctly on the scaffold pipes. Although Guerrero never lost full control of the plank, he was unable to prevent it from falling and striking Martinez.
Question Before the Court
The court was asked to decide whether the defendants were liable under Labor Law § 240(1) for failing to provide proper safety measures and whether there was a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) based on an overhead hazard under the Industrial Code. The court needed to determine whether Martinez’s injuries were caused by a gravity-related hazard involving a falling object that required securing and whether overhead protection was required under the circumstances.
Court’s Decision
The court granted Martinez partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240(1). It denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the § 240(1) claim. The court also denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment on the § 241(6) claim, concluding that factual issues remained about whether the area where Martinez was working was normally exposed to falling material.
Discussion
Labor Law § 240(1), also known as the Scaffold Law, applies when an object that should have been secured falls and injures a worker. The statute requires that contractors and owners provide safety devices to protect workers from elevation-related hazards. A failure to provide such safety can lead to strict liability.
Martinez showed that the plank was in the process of being placed on the ninth-floor scaffolding and that it needed to be secured to avoid falling. The court noted that the scaffold system lacked netting or other safety measures that could have protected workers on the lower levels. The absence of such protective devices supported the conclusion that there was a violation of § 240(1).
The defendants argued that the plank did not fall from a significant height and was only being handled manually. They claimed that the incident arose from the typical risks of working on a construction site. The court rejected these arguments, stating that even a short fall could result in liability under the statute if the object was heavy and generated enough force. The court cited case law confirming that objects being maneuvered or installed could qualify under § 240(1) if they required securing and fell during the process.
The defendants also argued that the plank was intentionally dropped and thus not covered by the statute. However, there was no evidence that the plank was deliberately released. Witnesses testified that Guerrero was trying to place the plank and that it slipped during the process.
Regarding Labor Law § 241(6), the plaintiff based his claim on a regulation that requires overhead protection in areas normally exposed to falling material. The defendants argued that Martinez was already on a scaffold and did not require additional protection. The plaintiff contended that no netting or barrier was in place to shield workers below from objects being installed above.
The court found that neither side presented enough evidence to resolve whether the area was normally exposed to falling material. As a result, the court allowed the § 241(6) claim to proceed, noting that the existence of an overhead hazard was a question of fact for a jury.
Conclusion
This case showed how New York’s construction safety laws protect workers injured by falling objects. Contractors and property owners may be held strictly liable when they fail to provide proper protection against gravity-related hazards.
If you or a loved one has been injured in a construction accident involving falling objects or unsafe scaffolding, contact an experienced New York personal injury lawyer at Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Our team can help you understand your rights and pursue compensation.