Installation of Security Cameras = Labor Law Claim

Sunday, September 25, 2005 | 0

INSTALLATION OF SECURITY CAMERAS IS A BUILDING ALTERATION, QUALIFIES AS A LABOR LAW CLAIM

Turner v. ISR Solutions, NYLJ 8/23/05 (Supreme Court, New York County) (YORK, j)

On September 22, 2003, while installing wiring for a security camera system in the Social Services Administration Building in Jamaica, New York, plaintiff Turner allegedly fell from a defective ladder and sustained serious injuries. There were no witnesses. According to Turner, he was standing on the second rung from the top of a twelve foot aluminum A-frame ladder which lacked safety feet or any kind of an anchor; the ladder swayed and Turner toppled sixteen feet to the floor, losing consciousness. Plaintiffs alleged that as a result of this fall Turner suffered traumatic injuries.

Plaintiff and his spouse alleged violations of Labor Law 200 and 240 (1-5) and Section 241(6). Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of Labor Law Section 240 liability.

Defendants asserted that plaintiffs' claim is not covered by Labor Law Section 240 because Turner was engaged in routine maintenance and was not "altering, erecting, demolishing, repairing, painting, cleaning, or pointing a building or structure" as required by the statute. At the time of his injury, Turner was standing on a ladder and running cable through the ceiling to install a security camera system. "This installation process was not a matter of routine maintenance but part of a large-scale alteration to the building," held the Court, "which encompassed the running of conduit, wire and junction boxes throughout every level of the building. The United States of America contracted with ISR to install the system for a total project cost of $675,000; ISR sub-contracted with KW to install the cameras for a cost of $285,000; and KW retained plaintiff's employer, Brown & Simpson Electrical Contracting to run the cables and install the junction boxes over the course of months for costs exceeding $75,000. Thus, Turner's labor involved making a significant physical change to the configuration or composition of the building.... Therefore, Labor Law Section 240 applies to the labor that defendant was engaged in at the time of the accident."

Defendants argued that the court should deny summary judgment because plaintiff was the only witness to the accident. "However, as plaintiffs point out, where there is no substantiated challenge to plaintiff's credibility, the fact that plaintiff may have been the sole witness to his accident does not preclude summary judgment on his behalf under Labor Law Section 240. Defendants have presented no evidence that there is an issue of fact relating to plaintiff's credibility or that there are materially different versions of how the accident occurred...."

"Turner's uncontradicted affidavit, that the ladder lacked safety feet and any anchor, provides a sufficient evidentiary basis for the purposes of summary judgment. Therefore, plaintiff has made out a prima facie case sufficient to establish liability under Labor Law Section 240 (1)."

Defendants contended that, even if plaintiffs made out a prima facie case, summary judgment should be denied as premature because defendants have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and no depositions have taken place. Defendants suggested that depositions may raise an issue of fact regarding proximate cause. "This, too, is speculative and unpersuasive. Turner was found unconscious with a broken skull ten feet away from the defective ladder. Considering these circumstances and the evidence of Turner's affidavit, proximate cause is fairly to be inferred.... Because Labor Law Section 240(1) is an absolute liability statute which precludes comparative negligence and assumption of the risk defenses, and because defendants have failed to raise an issue of fact regarding recalcitrance, the credibility of the plaintiff is not in issue."

Plaintiffs' Motion for summary judgment was granted on the issue of liability under Labor Law Section 240(1).

by NY attorney Lawrence Rogak.

-------------------------------

The views and opinions expressed by the author are not necessarily those of workcompcentral.com, its editors or management.