Summary
In Fitzgibbons, the Court simply states that Section 240(1) "is designed to protect workers, not only against the risk of falling from elevated heights, but also against the risk of being struck by falling objects," at 1069, 582 N.Y.S.2d 870, the opinion makes it clear that the plaintiff could recover because the accident happened in the course of the construction with its typical hazards of temporary structures and scaffolding.
Summary of this case from Violette v. Armonk Associates, L.P.Opinion
April 24, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Fudeman, J.
Present — Denman, P.J., Boomer, Boehm, Fallon and Davis, JJ.
Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted partial summary judgment to plaintiffs on the issue of liability on the cause of action brought pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1). That section is designed to protect workers, not only against the risk of falling from elevated heights, but also against the risk of being struck by falling objects (see, Staples v Town of Amherst, 146 A.D.2d 292; Siragusa v State of New York, 117 A.D.2d 986, 987, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 602; see also, Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 N.Y.2d 509; cf., Fox v Jenny Eng'g Corp., 122 A.D.2d 532, affd 70 N.Y.2d 761). Although no one saw a falling object strike plaintiff Robert T. Fitzgibbons, Jr., the undisputed circumstantial evidence submitted by plaintiffs furnished only one reasonable explanation for plaintiff Robert Fitzgibbons' injuries: a metal angle, to which a cable and chain hoist were attached, fell and struck him on the head as he was operating the hoist. That evidence established that defendant Olympia York Battery Park Company failed to meet its obligation under the statute to furnish or to erect hoists, blocks, or pulleys constructed so as to give proper protection to plaintiff Robert Fitzgibbons, who was employed in the construction of a building (see, Labor Law § 240).