Morales v. C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc.

Background

Angelo Morales, who worked as a contractor with Rehrig Pacific Logistics, was assigned to remove goods from truck trailers at C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc.’s warehouse. He used a motorized standing pallet jack owned and maintained by C&S. While backing out of a trailer, the pallet-jack wheels became stuck in a gap between a metal loading ramp, called a drop plate, and the warehouse floor. Morales fell from the pallet jack, got back on it, and fell again when the wheels became stuck in the same gap. He reported injuries to his neck, shoulder, knee, ankle, and head.

Morales sued C&S for common-law negligence and violations of New York Labor Law sections 200, 240(1), and 241(6). C&S moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, asking the court to resolve the claims without a trial because it argued that no genuine dispute of material fact required a jury’s decision.

Labor Law Section 240(1)

The court granted summary judgment to C&S on Morales’s section 240(1) claim. That statute protects workers from certain elevation-related hazards during specified construction activities, including construction, repair, alteration, and some types of cleaning. The court concluded that Morales was unloading pallets when he was injured, not performing construction work.

The court also determined that Morales’s truck-cleaning duties did not bring the accident within section 240(1). Those duties were routine, involved ordinary equipment such as a broom, did not involve the alleged elevation risk, and were unrelated to a construction, renovation, painting, alteration, or repair project. Most importantly, Morales did not claim that he was injured while cleaning. The court therefore held that no reasonable jury could find that he was performing covered construction work when he was injured.

Labor Law Section 241(6)

The court also granted summary judgment to C&S on the section 241(6) claim. That provision applies to areas where construction, excavation, or demolition work is being performed. Although Morales alleged that his contractor employer performed construction-related work at the warehouse, he presented no evidence supporting that allegation. The work contract instead described warehouse supervision, trailer unloading, keeping the designated area clean, and related administrative work. The court concluded that the undisputed evidence showed Morales’s work was unrelated to construction, excavation, or demolition.

Negligence and Labor Law Section 200

The court analyzed Morales’s common-law negligence and Labor Law section 200 claims together. Section 200 requires a reasonably safe workplace and generally reflects the common-law duty to maintain workplace safety. Morales pursued a premises-liability theory, arguing that the gap in the drop plate and the pallet-jack wheel were dangerous or defective conditions.

The court denied summary judgment on these claims. It found a factual dispute about whether the alleged conditions were dangerous. The record lacked photographs, inspection reports, and detailed testimony about the drop-plate gap. A maintenance report from the day after the accident stated that the pallet-jack caster wheel was worn down to the metal for at least half its surface and that its axle had to be cut out. That evidence could support a finding that the wheel or drop plate was defective.

The court also found disputes about constructive notice, meaning whether C&S should have discovered the condition through reasonable inspections. C&S did not dispute that its employees lacked actual notice, or direct prior knowledge, of the defects. But it did not show when the drop-plate gap arose or when the drop plate was last inspected. The evidence concerning the pallet-jack wheel was also conflicting: one account suggested the damage existed before the accident, while other evidence suggested it might have occurred during or after Morales’s falls.

Finally, the court found a triable issue concerning proximate cause, meaning whether the alleged defects caused the injury. Morales testified that he believed the wheels became stuck at the gap between the drop plate and the warehouse floor. The court concluded that this testimony was more than speculation and could allow a jury to find that the alleged conditions caused the accident. Any question about Morales’s comparative negligence was also for the jury.

New York Insurance Law Section 5104(a)

C&S argued that Morales could not recover because he had not shown a serious injury under New York Insurance Law section 5104(a). The court rejected that argument. The statute applies to personal injuries arising from the use or operation of a motor vehicle. The truck was not the cause of Morales’s injury; he was injured by the pallet jack while unloading the truck. The court also concluded that the pallet jack was not a motor vehicle under the statute because the evidence showed that it was used only inside the warehouse, was not shown to be designed for public-road use, and was not indicated to be registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Disposition

The court granted C&S’s motion for summary judgment as to Morales’s claims under New York Labor Law sections 240(1) and 241(6), and denied the motion in all other respects. The negligence and section 200 claims remained for a jury. The court also stated that it would refer the parties to mediation and set further pretrial proceedings by separate orders.