Gillespie v. Heartland Scenic Studio, Inc.

Background

William Lee Gillespie, a part-time employee of the American Museum of Natural History, was injured while an exhibit was being removed. The Museum had hired Heartland Scenic Studio, Inc. to install the “Our Senses” exhibit in 2017. The exhibit included temporary walls supported by strongbacks, or braces. Heartland installed the strongbacks into drywall rather than into the Museum’s permanent walls.

The Museum later hired New Project, LLC to remove the exhibit with Museum employees, including Gillespie. On January 23, 2019, while workers were removing a header over a doorway, part of the exhibit wall fell and struck Gillespie. He initially asserted negligence and New York Labor Law claims. The parties resolved the Labor Law claims, and the third-party complaint against New Project was dismissed by stipulation. The only remaining claim was Gillespie’s common-law negligence claim against Heartland.

Heartland’s Motion

Heartland moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows that no important factual dispute requires a factfinder’s decision. Heartland argued that it had no duty to attach the strongbacks to the permanent walls, that the exhibit’s approved plans did not call for such attachments, and that the accident was caused by New Project’s removal method. Heartland also argued that it did not participate in the removal.

Gillespie relied on testimony from construction expert Richard Robbins and workers involved in the removal. That evidence supported his position that properly installed strongbacks would have prevented the wall from falling, that Heartland was responsible for properly securing the wall, and that placing the strongbacks into drywall created a dangerous condition that was not visible to the removal workers.

The court also disregarded Heartland’s 227-paragraph statement of supposedly undisputed facts because the paragraphs did not cite specific supporting evidence as required by the federal and local rules.

Court’s Analysis

Under New York negligence law, a plaintiff must show a duty of care, a breach of that duty, and an injury proximately caused by the breach. The court applied the first exception recognized in Espinal v. Melville Snow Contractors, under which a contractor may owe a duty to people who are not parties to its contract if, while performing the contract, it creates or increases an unreasonable risk of harm.

The court held that the evidence created a factual dispute about whether Heartland had a duty to install the strongbacks into the permanent wall. The fact that the Museum-approved plans did not show those attachments did not resolve whether additional safety measures were required. Gillespie’s expert and witnesses who observed the removal provided evidence that the wall would not have fallen if it had been properly anchored.

The court also found a factual dispute about whether Heartland’s installation of the strongbacks into drywall itself created a dangerous condition. Gillespie’s evidence indicated that drywall was not structural, that the condition was not visible to the removal workers, and that the apparent support gave them a false sense of security. Heartland’s contrary evidence was deemed conclusory or insufficient to eliminate the factual dispute.

Disposition

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied Heartland’s motion for summary judgment. The court did not decide that Heartland was negligent; it ruled that a jury could find for Gillespie on the disputed issues of duty and causation. The case was directed to proceed to trial.