Barbu v. Doyle

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed an order granting summary judgment to the property owner, tenant, and tenant's owner in a personal-injury action arising from the plaintiff's fall from a pallet rack. The court held that the Labor Law claims failed because the plaintiff was not hired to perform work at the premises, that the out-of-possession owner owed no common-law negligence duty, and that the pallet rack was open and obvious. The court also affirmed denial of the plaintiffs' motion for Labor Law § 240(1) liability and leave to amend the bill of particulars.

Holdings

1. A plaintiff cannot invoke the protections of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) without demonstrating that the plaintiff was permitted or suffered to work on a building or structure and was hired by an owner, contractor, or agent. Because Barbu was not hired to perform work at the premises and was not acting as an employee when retrieving his property, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law causes of action.
2. An out-of-possession landlord is not liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions on leased premises absent a statute imposing liability, a contractual obligation to repair, or a course of conduct giving rise to a duty. Connan Land Company established that it was not contractually or otherwise obligated to maintain the interior of the premises, and summary judgment dismissing the negligence claim against it was proper.
3. A possessor of real property has no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition that is not inherently dangerous as a matter of law. The pallet rack was readily observable and not inherently dangerous, so Par 4 and Doyle were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) causes of action because the injured plaintiff was not hired to perform work at the premises and was not acting as an employee.
2. Whether the out-of-possession owner was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence claim because it had no statutory, contractual, or course-of-conduct duty to maintain the interior of the leased premises.
3. Whether Par 4 and Doyle were entitled to summary judgment on the common-law negligence claim because the pallet rack was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous.
4. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) or leave to amend the bill of particulars to assert Industrial Code violations.

Disposition

affirmed