A New York construction worker received summary judgment in a Labor Law case involving an injury he sustained when a brick struck his head.
The Appellate Division, First Department partially reversed a lower court decision that denied summary judgment for the injured worker, finding that the law applied despite the fact that he didn’t see what struck him at the time.
Delivery zone he was working in had no overhead protection
Johnny Torres-Quito was working as a mechanic’s helper for P.I. Mechanical Corp. installing heating, ventilation and air conditioning in a 34-story condominium building that was under construction in Manhattan.
P.I. Mechanical was one of several subcontractors hired by general contractor Ryder Construction Inc. to perform work on the construction site, which was owned by 1711 LLC. Ryder subcontracted window installation to Pioneer Window Manufacturing, who then subcontracted its window installation work to V&P Altitude Corp.
On the day of the incident, Torres-Quito was told by his supervisor to help unload a delivery of ductwork piping from a box truck that was parked in a delivery unloading zone set up by Ryder.
As Torres-Quito stood directly behind the truck to assist in unloading the piping, he was suddenly struck in the head by a falling brick, which cracked his hard hat on impact and caused head injuries.
Torres-Quito didn’t see what struck him, but at the time of the incident window installation work was being performed directly above the delivery zone. That work included drilling into and removing parts of the brick façade to install window components. There was no horizontal netting placed over the delivery zone to protect workers from falling debris. An incident report completed by Ryder admitted that the work being done could have resulted in brick debris falling from the building.
Law isn’t dependent on injured worker seeing what struck them
On Oct. 28, 2022, a lower court denied Torres-Quito’s request for summary judgment, finding that the Labor Law didn’t apply since Torres-Quito didn’t see the brick that struck him. The Labor Law in question imposes absolute liability on property owners and general contractors for injuries stemming from the application of gravity to an object or person.
On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department said that the lower court erred in denying Torres-Quito summary judgment.
The court explained that the Labor Law isn’t dependent on whether the injured worker observed the object that struck them. The worker also isn’t required to show “the exact circumstances under which the object fell, where a lack of a protective device proximately caused the injuries.”
All of the evidence pointed to the fact that Torres-Quito was struck by a brick while standing in a designated unloading zone that didn’t have overhead protection despite the work being done above.
However, the appeals court affirmed the lower court’s denial of summary judgment on the second part of Torres-Quito’s lawsuit, which involved a section of the Labor Law that says property owners and general contractors must provide adequate safety for construction workers.
This was “because there was no evidence that the area where (Torres-Quito) was working was normally exposed to falling objects or that the work being done on the building involved the construction of exterior masonry walls.”
