Opinion
93398
Decided and Entered: July 31, 2003.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Demarest, J.), entered December 11, 2002 in Franklin County, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.
Costello, Cooney Fearon P.L.L.C., Syracuse (Brendan J. Reagan of counsel), for appellant.
Setright Longstreet L.L.P., Syracuse (Michael J. Longstreet of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, a "pipe layer," was installing a water line for defendant when a 20-foot section of iron ductile pipe, weighing approximately 850 pounds, rolled into the six-foot deep trench in which he was working, injuring him. Plaintiff's crew had braced the pipe with blocks, clumps of dirt, rocks or wood. Nevertheless, vibrations from a trackhoe and muddy conditions caused the pipe to become loose and roll down a 15-foot slope before falling into the trench and striking plaintiff.
Plaintiff thereafter commenced this action, alleging violations of Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241. Following joinder of issue, plaintiff sought partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240(1). Defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's section 240(1) claim. Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion and denied defendant's cross motion, concluding that a Labor Law § 240(1) violation had been established because plaintiff was exposed to a gravity-related hazard due to the height differential between the work site and the position of the pipe section that fell. Defendant appeals and we now affirm.
Labor Law § 240(1) was designed to prevent those types of accidents in which certain enumerated protective devices "prove inadequate to shield the injured worker from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person" (Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 501 [emphasis in original]). In cases that involve falling objects, "Labor Law § 240(1) applies where the falling of an object is related to `a significant risk inherent in * * * the relative elevation * * * at which materials or loads must be positioned or secured'" (Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 N.Y.2d 259, 267-268, quoting Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co., 78 N.Y.2d 509, 514). Section 240(1) does not apply in every instance where a worker is injured by a falling object; instead, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the object "that fell on plaintiff was * * * material being hoisted or a load that required securing for the purposes of the undertaking at the time it fell" (Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Assoc., supra at 268 [emphasis added]). Moreover, a plaintiff must demonstrate "that the object fell, while being hoisted or secured,because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute" (id. at 268 [emphasis in original]).
Here, plaintiff was standing in a portion of the trench that was four to five feet deep when the bracing or blocks supporting the pipe at ground level failed, causing it to roll into the trench. One portion of the pipe fell six feet into a deeper portion of the trench and the other end fell three feet prior to striking plaintiff. The pipe had been laid out along the trench to be installed as a water line and, thus, was "a load that required securing for the purposes of the undertaking" (id. at 268). Accordingly, plaintiff was exposed to an elevation-related hazard because his work site was positioned below the level where the pipe was secured and his injury was the result of "being struck by a falling object that was improperly hoisted or inadequately secured" (Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., supra at 501; see Van Eken v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 294 A.D.2d 352, 353; Orner v. Port Auth. of N.Y. N.J., 293 A.D.2d 517, 517-518; Outar v. City of New York, 286 A.D.2d 671, 672-673; Panattoni v. Inducon Park Assoc., 247 A.D.2d 823, 823).
The cases relied upon by defendant involving the collapse of trench walls are distinguishable inasmuch as they involved the ordinary dangers of a construction site, rather than elevation-related risks (see O'Connell v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 276 A.D.2d 608, 609-610; Vitaliotis v. Village of Saltaire, 229 A.D.2d 575, 575;Staples v. Town of Amherst, 146 A.D.2d 292, 294; see also Misseritti v. Mark IV Constr. Co., 86 N.Y.2d 487, 490-491). Defendant's reliance on cases involving objects dislodged from the ground is also misplaced because the objects there did not fall while being secured or due to the inadequacy of safety devices (see Matter of Fischer v. State of New York, 291 A.D.2d 815, 815-816; Hamann v. City of New York, 219 A.D.2d 583, 583; see also Gampietro v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, 303 A.D.2d 996).
Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.