CHARLES ROSS, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, v. CURTIS- PALMER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS,
AND INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, APPELLANT-RESPONDENT.
81 N.Y.2d 494, 618 N.E.2d 82, 601 N.Y.S.2d 49 (1993).
June 10, 1993
3 No. 110 (1993 N.Y. Int. 124)
Decided June 10, 1993
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
George L. Sarachan, for Respondent-appellant.
Michael J. Hutter, for Appellant-respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
TITONE, J.:
Plaintiff, a welder, was allegedly injured in an industrial accident,
which, he contends, was caused by the absence of an adequate and
properly placed structure or device that would have enabled him safely
to perform his work at the elevated job site. The issue presented on
these cross-appeals taken by the injured plaintiff and the general
contractor hired to oversee the work is whether plaintiff, whose
injury resulted from back strain rather than a fall, may recover in
damages from the general contractor under Labor Law §§ 200(1), 240(1)
or 241(6). More specifically, these cross-appeals require us to
consider whether plaintiff's accident is within the class of hazards
contemplated by Labor Law § 240(1), whether the Industrial Code
regulations on which plaintiff relies support a cause of action under
Labor Law § 241(6) and, if not, whether plaintiff's submissions at
this early stage of the litigation are sufficient to satisfy his
burden under Labor Law § 200(1) of showing defendants' supervision or
control over the injury-producing work. Under the circumstances of
this case, we hold that plaintiff has no cause of action under
sections 240(1) and 241(6) of the Labor Law, but that his submissions
are sufficient to create triable questions of fact under section
200(1).
Plaintiff was employed by Bechtel Corporation to perform certain
welding tasks at a construction site owned by defendant Curtis-Palmer
Hydro-Electric Co. and managed by defendant International Paper Co.,
the general contractor. Bechtel had been retained by International
Paper to do a portion of the construction. According to plaintiff's
allegations, plaintiff was assigned the task of welding a 26- to
SNIPPETS:
AND INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, APPELLANT-RESPONDENT.
George L. Sarachan, for Respondent-appellant.
Plaintiff, a welder, was allegedly injured in an industrial accident, which, he contends, was
The issue presented on these cross-appeals taken by the injured plaintiff and the general
More specifically, these cross-appeals require us to consider whether plaintiff's accident is
Plaintiff was employed by Bechtel Corporation to perform certain welding tasks at a
Following limited discovery, defendant International Paper moved for summary judgment
On plaintiff's appeal, however, a divided Appellate Division reinstated all of plaintiff's
en supplied.
As to plaintiff's Labor Law § 200claim, the Appellate Division held that International
the court held that plaintiff's Labor Law § 241claim against defendant International Paper
It is by now well established that the duty imposed by Labor Law § 240is nondelegable and
Corp., 298 313, 319, quoting Quigley v Thatcher, 207 NY 66, 68), we held in Rocovich v
The general common-law principles governing landowners' duty to provide a safe workplace may
Nonetheless, the distinction that our case law has consistently drawn between general and
The duty to provide materials and equipment "of such kind and quality as a reasonable and
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, in
|
