Salazar v. Novalex Contracting Corp.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals held that Labor Law § 240 (1) did not apply to a worker who stepped into a trench while spreading concrete because covering or barricading the trench would have been inconsistent with the purpose of the work, which was to fill it. The court similarly dismissed the worker’s Labor Law § 241 (6) claim predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1) (i).

Holdings

1. Defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim because the proposed protective device would have been contrary to the objectives of the work plan, which required filling the trench with concrete.
2. Defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim because 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1) (i) could not reasonably be applied to require covering or guarding an opening that the work necessarily required workers to fill with concrete.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Labor Law § 240 (1) imposed liability for the failure to cover or barricade a trench when the work itself required filling the trench with concrete.
2. Whether Labor Law § 241 (6), predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1) (i), applied when covering or guarding the trench would have been inconsistent with the work of filling it.

Disposition

reversed