Bland v. Manocherian

• Decision Date: 19 December 1985
• Citation: 497 N.Y.S.2d 880,66 N.Y.2d 452,488 N.E.2d 810
• Parties: , 488 N.E.2d 810 Thomas BLAND et al., Respondents, v. Amir MANOCHERIAN et al., Doing Business as Fraydun Realty Co., Defendants-Appellants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. Barney Schogel Incorporated, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. Ollis A. WRIGHT et al., Respondents, v. STATE of New York, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 880

497 N.Y.S.2d 880

66 N.Y.2d 452, 488 N.E.2d 810

Thomas BLAND et al., Respondents, v. Amir MANOCHERIAN et al., Doing Business as Fraydun Realty

Co., Defendants-Appellants and Third-Party

Plaintiffs-Respondents.

Barney Schogel Incorporated, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Ollis A. WRIGHT et al., Respondents, v. STATE of New York, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 19, 1985.

Anthony J. McNulty, New York City, for defendants-appellants and third-party plaintiffs-respondents in the first above-entitled action.

William F. Larkin, Raymond C. Green and Douglas E. McKeon, New York City, for third-party defendant-appellant in the first above-entitled action.

Scott N. Singer, Melvin Sacks and Jon W. Green, New York City, for respondents in the first above-entitled action.

T. Alan Brown, for appellant in the second above-entitled action.

Richard P. Weisbeck, Jr., for respondents in the second above-entitled action.

OPINION OF THE COURT

JASEN, Judge.

These appeals arise out of construction site accidents involving workmen injured as a result of alleged violations of Labor Law § 240.

In Bland v. Manocherian, 106 A.D.2d 255, 482 N.Y.S.2d 21, plaintiff sustained injuries while working on an apartment building owned by defendants who had hired third-party defendant, plaintiff's employer, to make certain alterations. Plaintiff fell through a fourth story window when the ladder upon which he was standing suddenly collapsed beneath him. Plaintiff and his spouse brought this action under Labor Law § 240 seeking damages resulting from a construction accident.

At the first trial, the court refused to charge that improper placement of the ladder constituted a violation of the statute on the part of defendants, but the jury, nonetheless, returned a verdict for both plaintiffs finding, in its answers to interrogatories, that defendants had violated Labor Law § 240 by failing to provide plaintiff with a safety belt. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed and ordered a new trial on the ground that the court had erred in instructing the jury that a safety belt was a necessary "device", under the circumstances, as a matter of law, regardless of industry custom and practice.

At the second trial, plaintiff testified that a co-worker had brought the ladder furnished by third-party defendant employer into the apartment, that plaintiff himself positioned the ladder "sideways" to and several inches from the window, and that, as he stood on the ladder removing the window sashes, the ladder collapsed and folded beneath him, causing him to fall through the window. The jury returned a second verdict in plaintiffs' favor, having unanimously answered the court's special verdict questions as follows:

"1. Did the accident happen substantially in the manner claimed by plaintiff?

"Answer: Yes.

"2 Was the ladder defective?

"Answer: No.

"2(a) If the answer to two (2) is yes, was the defect a proximate cause of the accident?

"Answer:

"3. Was the ladder placed so as to give proper protection to the plaintiff?

"Answer: No.

"3(a) If the answer to three (3) is no, was the improper placement of the ladder a proximate cause of the accident?

"Answer: Yes."

Thereafter, the court directed a verdict for defendants owners against third-party defendant employer and, upon the latter's motion, reduced plaintiffs' damages. On cross appeals, the Appellate Division modified by ordering a new trial on the issue of damages unless plaintiffs consented to accept the verdicts as reduced by the trial court.

In Wright v. State of New York, 110 A.D.2d 1060, 488 N.Y.S.2d 917, claimant was injured while working on a construction project in Allegany State Park. He was working in a sitting position on a so-called "carpenter's bracket scaffold" which he and a co-worker had erected. When claimant attempted to stand, as was necessitated by the project, he lost his balance and fell approximately seven feet to the ground. At the time of the accident, the scaffold had in place only one, of two, 12-inch-wide planks for use as a standing platform, and neither a guardrail nor other protective device had been installed to prevent such a fall.

Claimant and his spouse brought this action under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241, alleging the State's failure, as owner of the project site, to provide a safe place to work. The Court of Claims found that the scaffold did not give "proper protection" to claimant, that "considering the scaffold's height and narrow width, there was a clear danger of injury if some protective devices were not provided", and that the absence of "safety railings * * * was a substantial factor in causing the injuries". Nevertheles the court held that the Labor Law provisions in question did not impose absolute liability on the owner of the work site under such facts, but, instead, required the court to determine the extent to which the claimant himself contributed to the accident. The court found that the claimant's share of responsibility for the accident was 50% and that he was, therefore, entitled to recovery of only half the damages he sustained.

On appeal, the Appellate Division modified, finding that the lack of guardrails or other protective devices was a failure to give "proper protection" under Labor Law § 240(1), and was a proximate cause of the accident. The court held that comparative negligence is irrelevant under that statutory provision and, consequently, that the State was liable for the full amount of claimant's damages.

On appeal to this court, the owner of the premises in the Bland v. Manocherian case argues that there was no actionable violation of Labor Law § 240(1) and, even if there were, that the jury's finding of improper ladder placement should bar recovery for plaintiffs because the statute was not designed to insure a worker against his own avoidable fault.

In Wright v. State of New York, the State argues that Labor Law § 240 does not apply to the facts of this case as there was no evidence offered as to the propriety or impropriety of the use of guardrails in connection with a carpenter's bracket scaffold at a height of seven feet. Where a scaffold is adequately constructed, the State claims, height alone determines the need for the guardrails as the statute specifically requires such guardrails only when scaffolds exceed 20 feet.

Recently, this court held in Zimmer v. Chemung County Performing Arts, 65 N.Y.2d 513, 493 N.Y.S.2d 102, 482 N.E.2d 898, that Labor Law § 240(1) ¹ imposes absolute liability upon an owner or contractor for failing to provide or erect safety devices necessary to give proper protection to a worker who sustains injuries proximately caused by that failure. It was noted that the legislative purpose of Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 was to place " 'ultimate responsibility for safety practices at building construction jobs where such responsibility actually belongs, on the owner and general contractor' " (id., at p. 520, 493 N.Y.S.2d 102, 482 N.E.2d 898, quoting 1969 NY Legis Ann, at 407), and that the statutory provisions were " 'to be construed as liberally as may be for the accomplishment of the purpose for which [they were] thus framed' " (id., at p. 521, 493 N.Y.S.2d 102, 482 N.E.2d 898, quoting Quigley v. Thatcher, 207 N.Y. 66, 68, 100 N.E. 596). Finally, the majority in Zimmer explained that once it is determined that the owner or contractor failed to provide the necessary safety devices required to give a worker "proper protection", absolute liability is "unavoidable" under section 240(1), as well as under the first five subdivisions of section 241, regardless of the injured worker's own negligence in contributing to his accident (id., 65 N.Y.2d at pp. 521-522, 493 N.Y.S.2d 102, 482 N.E.2d 898). This interpretation of the statutory provisions is now binding precedent upon the entire court. (Foss v. City of Rochester, 66 N.Y.2d ---, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, --- N.E.2d ---- [decided Nov. 20, 1985].)

Application of the foregoing requirements enunciated in Zimmer presents little difficulty in the two appeals before us. In Bland v. Manocherian, there are affirmed findings of fact that the ladder from which plaintiff fell was not "placed so as to give proper protection" and that the improper placement was a proximate cause of the accident. These findings are supported by legally sufficient evidence in the record. There was testimony at trial explaining the manner in which old windows were removed and replaced with new ones. Specifical]y, there was testimony by the job foreman that pressure would have to be applied to the sashes and, at the same time, the windows forcibly twisted loose, all while plaintiff was standing on a ladder. There was further testimony from the job foreman that the floor upon which the ladder was placed was bare, highly polished and shiny. Additionally, plaintiff testified that the ladder, which he had positioned sideways, approximately six inches from the window, fell from beneath him as he was pushing against the sash of that window. Finally, there was also testimony by the job foreman that no safety equipment, safety belts, hard hats, scaffolding or anything else, was used to protect plaintiff from falling through the fourth floor window or to secure the ladder to insure that it remained steady and erect while plaintiff was applying pressure to that window.

The jury was clearly entitled to find that, under the circumstances, defendants failed to satisfy the responsibilities imposed by section 240(1) in that they had not "erected" or "placed" the ladder from which plaintiff fell in such a manner, or with such safeguards, as necessary to provide plaintiff with "proper protection" while he was working on defendants' building. ² Consequently, regardless of any carelessness on plaintiff's part which might also have contributed to his fall, defendants were properly held absolutely liable for the full extent of the damages proximately resulting from the improper...