What do you think?
New York labor law § 240 (1) is partially designed to protect employees from falling objects. In a recent case, it is about whether a pneumatic instrument falls from a fence and a worker falls below 240 (1).
The worker used a rhino to install the fence. Fortunately, in this case, the rhinoceros was not an almost visible but very dangerous animal with a great sense of smell and the tendency for charging, but a device for driving in fence posts. The rhino is a pneumatic tool that runs on an air compressor. They put it on a fence rod over the shell of the tool and essentially hammer the poles into the ground.
The rhino, which weighed between 55 and 80 pounds, was sitting on a post as it shot up unexpectedly and then hit the worker on the head.
The worker claimed that the safety device of the tool, namely the sleeve, which the tool kept on the pole, could not keep the rhino in position until it could be removed after the post was put in the ground. The employee argued that this set a violation of labor law § 240 (1).
New York labor law § 240 (1) provides for:
All contractors and owners and their agents. . . In the construction, demolition, repair, change, painting, cleaning or showing a building or structure must be built or erected or built to be set up or built for the implementation of this work. Scaffolds, hoists, stays, ladders, spinning, clothes, blocks, straps, braces, iron, ropes and other devices that have to be constructed, placed and operated in order to grant a proper protection. [emphasis added].
The employer asked the court to eject the case and claimed that the above -mentioned provision did not apply under the circumstances.
Was § 240 (1) applicable for the injury of the employee?
A. Yes. The tool fell because it was not properly secured.
B. no. The law applies if the main cause of the fall is gravity.
If you have selected B, you agreed to the court in D'Arrigo against Long Island Concrete, Inc., No. 519403/2019. (NY SUP.
The court said that the law was intended to protect an injured employee from damage that flows directly from gravity to an object or one person. The law does not cover accidents that are only related to the effects of gravity.
“Rather, gravity must be a direct factor for the accident if a worker falls from a height or is hit by a falling object,” wrote the court.
In addition, the accident was not due to a predictable risk of altitude that was shown by the work. “[F]Alling object situations that are covered by the Labor Act contain the dangers in connection with gravity that are obvious, ”wrote the court.
Finally, the court pointed out that the rhino was designed so that they slide up and down and put the post in position. The securing of this would have defeated its purpose.
The court dismissed the employee's claim.
