Laverty v. Dobco, Inc.

Background

Gary Laverty sued Dobco, Inc. for damages after he was injured while performing demolition work at the West Point Military Academy. Laverty worked for J.R. Contracting and Environmental Consulting Inc., a subcontractor retained by Dobco. On April 6, 2020, Laverty was cutting an overhead pipe while standing on a six-foot A-frame ladder. He testified that the pipe swung down, struck the ladder, and caused him to fall.

Laverty asserted claims under New York Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6), along with common-law negligence. He moved for summary judgment under Rule 56 on his § 240(1) claim. Dobco cross-moved for summary judgment on all of those claims.

Section 240(1) claim

New York Labor Law § 240(1), commonly called the scaffold law, requires contractors and building owners to provide appropriate safety devices for certain elevation-related construction risks. Laverty argued that Dobco failed to provide adequate protection while he demolished an overhead pipe from a ladder. Dobco argued that Bobcats were available to support and lower overhead pipes and that Laverty was solely responsible for his injury because he did not use or request one.

The court denied both motions on this claim. It found that Laverty established an elevation-related hazard covered by § 240(1), but genuine disputes of material fact remained about whether Dobco provided adequate protection and whether the alleged lack of protection caused the injury. The parties’ experts disagreed about whether a Bobcat could be an adequate safety device for this work, which the court said was generally a question for a jury.

The court also found factual disputes concerning Dobco’s defense that Laverty was the sole proximate cause of his injury. Those disputes included whether Laverty knew that Bobcats were available to support and lower pipes, whether he knew he was expected to use them, what instructions his supervisor provided, and whether Laverty deliberately chose not to use an available safety device.

Section 241(6) claim

Section 241(6) requires reasonable and adequate protection at construction and demolition sites and generally depends on a violation of a specific provision of New York’s Industrial Code. Laverty relied on a regulation requiring proper scaffolds where necessary for welding or flame-cutting and another regulation concerning the use of stepladders at least ten feet above their footing.

The court granted Dobco summary judgment on the § 241(6) claim and dismissed it. It held that the scaffold regulation was too general because it used terms such as “where necessary” and “proper,” rather than giving a specific command. The court also held that the stepladder regulation did not apply because Laverty was standing on a ladder less than ten feet above the ground.

Section 200 and common-law negligence claims

The court treated Laverty’s § 200 claim as involving the methods and means of performing the work. For that type of claim, the plaintiff must provide evidence that the general contractor had authority to supervise or control how the work was performed and knew or should have known about the danger.

The court granted Dobco summary judgment on Laverty’s § 200 and common-law negligence claims and dismissed them. It held that Dobco’s authority, including the authority of its safety personnel to stop unsafe work, amounted only to general supervision. That authority was not enough to show that Dobco controlled the manner in which Laverty performed the pipe-demolition work.

Disposition

The court denied Laverty’s motion in its entirety. It granted Dobco’s motion in part and denied it in part: the motion was denied as to the § 240(1) claim and granted as to the § 241(6), § 200, and common-law negligence claims. The § 240(1) claim remains for further proceedings. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motions and scheduled a pretrial conference for April 11, 2024.