5601d No. 21
Keith Bauer,
Appellant,
v.
The Female Academy of the Sacred Heart,
Respondent. (and a third-party action.)
_________________________________________________________________
2002 NY Int. 34
March 26, 2002
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Cornelius D. Murray, for appellant.
Lynn M. Blake, for respondent.
Michael J. Hutter, for third-party respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
CIPARICK, J.:
The two issues to be resolved on this appeal are first, whether an
injured window cleaner's claims under Labor Law § 202 and Labor
Law § 240(1) can coexist, and second, whether a violation of Labor
Law § 202, which gives a cause of action to persons injured while
cleaning windows and building exteriors, results in strict liability
or comparative negligence. We conclude that plaintiff can assert
claims under both Labor Law § 202 and Labor Law § 240(1), and
that Labor Law § 202 requires application of comparative negligence
principles.
Keith Bauer was a window washer employed by third-party defendant
Environmental Service Systems (ESS). In October 1992, defendant Female
Academy of the Sacred Heart hired ESS to clean windows, including the
third floor exterior windows, of a building located on its campus in
Albany. As is sometimes the case with older buildings, the exterior
portions of the windows were to be cleaned using the belt-and-anchor
method, meaning that a window cleaner wears a safety belt through
which an adjustable wire (or lanyard) runs, with hooks on each end.
The cleaner typically hooks one end of the lanyard to one of two
anchors on each side of a window while standing inside and then steps
onto the window ledge, hooking the other end to the second anchor. The
cleaner keeps both ends of the lanyard hooked to the anchors while
washing the window. When finished, the cleaner normally detaches one
hook, steps inside the building and then detaches the second hook.
SNIPPETS:
The Female Academy of the Sacred Heart, Respondent.
The two issues to be resolved on this appeal are first, whether an injured window cleaner's
Law § 202, which gives a cause of action to persons injured while cleaning windows and
We conclude that plaintiff can assert claims under both Labor Law § 202 and Labor Law § 240,
Keith Bauer was a window washer employed by third-party defendant Environmental Service
In October 1992, defendant Female Academy of the Sacred Heart hired ESS to clean windows,
As is sometimes the case with older buildings, the exterior portions of the windows were to
The cleaner typically hooks one end of the lanyard to one of two anchors on each side of a
When finished, the cleaner normally detaches one hook, steps inside the building and then
After discovery, both defendant and ESS moved to dismiss all of plaintiff's causes of action
Supreme Court denied the motions and the cross-motion, holding that plaintiff could allege
At trial, Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict finding that the
On defendants' appeal, the Appellate Division held that, although Labor Law § 202 was
The requirements of Labor Law § 202 apply to owners, lessees, agents and managers while
To the extent Labor Law § 240may impose liability upon parties who, under the requirements of
This mandate was removed in 1970 and replaced by language that referred exclusively to the
Thus, whereas the absence or inadequacy of anchors may in the past have constituted a direct
As we noted in Long, the rule imposing strict liability only when there has been a violation
|
