Davis v. Pizzagalli Const. Co.
| Decision Date | 29 October 1992 |
| Parties | James M. DAVIS et al., Appellants, v. PIZZAGALLI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Learned, Reilly & Learned (Diana L. Hughes, of counsel), Elmira, for appellants.
Levene, Gouldin & Thompson (John L. Perticone, of counsel), Binghamton, for Pizzagalli Constr. Co. and another, respondents.
Thaler & Thaler (Guy K. Krogh, of counsel), Ithaca, for Arthur Barber, Jr., respondent.
Before MIKOLL, J.P., and YESAWICH, MERCURE, CREW and CASEY, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Swartwood, J.), entered October 14, 1991 in Chemung County, which denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Plaintiff James M. Davis (hereinafter Davis) was employed by defendant Arthur Barber, Jr., individually and doing business as Ontario Painting, a subcontractor to defendant Pizzagalli Construction Company, which was hired by defendant County of Chemung to coal-tar filter tanks it owned in the City of Elmira. On July 29, 1987, Davis was injured during the course of his employment when he fell from scaffolding, prompting these damage actions by Davis and his wife, derivatively; the suits charge defendants with negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 and 241. After issue was joined and discovery had, plaintiffs moved, unsuccessfully, for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendants' liability under Labor Law § 240(1). Plaintiffs appeal.
Labor Law § 240(1) imposes absolute liability upon contractors, owners and their agents for injuries proximately caused by a failure to provide "proper protection" under circumstances where an elevation differential places workers at risk (see, Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co., 78 N.Y.2d 509, 513-514, 577 N.Y.S.2d 219, 583 N.E.2d 932). By submitting proof that a scaffold collapsed or broke, a plaintiff establishes a prima facie violation of the statute. The burden then shifts to the defendant to submit evidence which would raise a factual issue, or an acceptable excuse, for its failure to provide the "proper protection" (see, Clute v. Ellis Hosp., 184 A.D.2d 942, 944, 585 N.Y.S.2d 140, 142; see also, Place v. Grand Union Co., 184 A.D.2d 817, 584 N.Y.S.2d 666, 667; Drew v. Correct Mfg. Corp., Hughes-Keenan Div., 149 A.D.2d 893, 894, 540 N.Y.S.2d 575; Alston v. Golub Corp., 129 A.D.2d 916, 917, 514 N.Y.S.2d 553).
Davis' uncontradicted deposition testimony establishes that a board which was part of the scaffold platform "kicked up", causing him to plunge approximately 10 feet to a concrete floor below. This "kicking up" is essentially a form of collapse, not unlike a rung of a ladder falling from the ladder frame. Two structural members, which were intended to remain attached to each other for proper operation of the scaffold, became separated; this represents a basic failure of the structure, sufficient to establish a prima facie case (see, Wescott v. Shear, 161 A.D.2d 925, 557 N.Y.S.2d 493; Alston v. Golub Corp., supra, 129 A.D.2d at 917, 514 N.Y.S.2d 553). This situation is distinguishable from one in which someone simply falls from a ladder or platform without any apparent change in the device itself (see, Russell v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., 160 A.D.2d 1215, 1216, 555 N.Y.S.2d 480). Furthermore, Davis has presented evidence of the reason for the board's detachment, namely the buildup of coal tar on the hooks which secured the platform boards in place.
For their part, defendants offer nothing other than speculation and surmise as to how the accident may have happened. In an effort to account for their failure to rebut plaintiffs' prima facie showing, they maintain that the actual fall was unwitnessed, and that the details of how the accident occurred are within the exclusive knowledge of Davis. The mere fact, however, that the actual fall was not witnessed does not require that summary judgment be denied (see, Bras v. Atlas Constr. Corp., 166 A.D.2d 401, 560 N.Y.S.2d 467). Defendants could have inspected the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rivera v. Sealand Contractors Corp.
...to inspect the ladder (see, De Rocha v. Old Spaghetti Warehouse, supra, 207 A.D.2d at 979, 617 N.Y.S.2d 89; Davis v. Pizzagalli Constr. Co., 186 A.D.2d 960, 961, 589 N.Y.S.2d 211; Marasco v. Kaplan, supra ). Hence, this is not an instance where the manner in which the accident occurred is w......
-
Cosban v. New York City Transit Authority
...a question of fact or an acceptable excuse for its failure to furnish proper protection to plaintiff (see, Davis v. Pizzagalli Construction Company, 186 A.D.2d 960, 589 N.Y.S.2d 211; Bras v. Atlas Construction Corp., 166 A.D.2d 401, 560 N.Y.S.2d 467; Hauff v. CLXXXII Via Magna Corp., 118 A.......
-
Lajeunesse v. Feinman
...view of the basic failure of the device, no issue is raised by the absence of an eyewitness to the fall (see, Davis v. Pizzagalli Constr. Co., 186 A.D.2d 960, 589 N.Y.S.2d 211; Place v. Grand Union Co., 184 A.D.2d 817, 584 N.Y.S.2d 666). As for the fact that plaintiff's fall took him into a......
-
Squires v. Robert Marini Bldrs. Inc., 3
...which would raise a factual issue, or an acceptable excuse, for its failure to provide the 'proper protection'" (Davis v Pizzagalli Constr. Co., 186 A.D.2d 960, 961). Because defendant failed to do so, Supreme Court properly granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment holding de......