Appellate Court Holds That Staged Accident Could Be Sole Proximate Cause of Scaffold Law Plaintiff’s Injuries

To say that Sections 200, 240(1), and 241(6) of the Labor Law, New York’s “Scaffold Law”, is the bane of the construction industry would be a gross understatement. The Scaffold Law results in ever increasing insurance costs, and ultimately stunts the development it is ostensibly designed to make safer. One small ray of hope is that where an injured plaintiff is said to be the “sole proximate cause” of his or her injuries (that there could be nothing else that contributed to the injuries other than the plaintiff’s own actions), the Scaffold Law’s absolute liability will no longer apply. Unfortunately, courts are quite strict in interpreting what actions constitute sole proximate cause.

One perverse side effect of the Scaffold Law is the increasing frequency of staged accidents, where a plaintiff—who is not always a construction worker—will enter a job site and climb up on to a ladder or scaffold (or other elevation) and throw him or herself from it. There are currently some lawsuits working their way through the court system under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (the RICO act, which was the tool used to topple the Mafia) alleging that these claims are part of an orchestrated scheme between criminal alien smugglers, dishonest doctors, and dishonest lawyers to churn settlements and verdicts out of the insurance industry through their insureds—you! Without delving into these allegations, an appellate court, in the recent case of Anguisaca-Morales v St. Paul and St. Andrew Condominium Association, held that video evidence created an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff intentionally fell from the ladder, thus making himself the sole proximate cause of his injuries.

Background

In July of 2020, the plaintiff fell three feet from a ladder. Video surveillance footage of the job site showed that at the time of his fall, the plaintiff was leaning to the side, apparently throwing himself from the ladder. Importantly, the ladder did not shift until after the plaintiff fell. The plaintiff brought suit and ultimately made the typical Scaffold Law motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. In opposition, the defendants noted the video evidence showing that the plaintiff apparently threw himself from the ladder, and that the ladder did not move until after the plaintiff was already off of it. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion, finding that the plaintiff’s testimony that the ladder moved prior to the fall was sufficient to grant summary judgment to him. The defendants moved to both reargue, and to amend the complaint to assert a counterclaim for fraud based on the staged nature of the accident. The court denied both motions. The defendants appealed.

Decision

The appellate court held that under the circumstances of the video evidence, it was not sufficient to have granted the plaintiff’s motion. The appellate court reasoned that the video evidence created a question of fact as to whether the plaintiff intentionally fell; if such was indeed the case, then the plaintiff would be considered the sole proximate cause of his injuries and, thus, outside the ambit of the Scaffold Law. Accordingly, the appellate court directed that the matter be tried. However, the appellate court did not go so far as to permit the assertion of the fraud counterclaim, finding that it was not sufficient.

Comment

While the appellate court did not go so far as to grant the motion to assert a fraud counterclaim, it denied what would ordinarily be a slam-dunk motion for summary judgment, and it referred the issue of whether the plaintiff intentionally caused his own injuries to a jury. Crucial to the appellate court was the video evidence which “created a question of fact as to whether the plaintiff intentionally fell”. The lesson to be gleaned from this decision is the importance of video surveillance on the jobsite to catch such ne’er-do-wells in the act and establish that they, by intentionally causing their own injuries, were the sole proximate cause of their injuries. Even if the accident is not staged, a video record will establish exactly how the accident happened, and whether the plaintiff could nevertheless be considered the sole proximate cause of their injuries by, for instance, failing to tie off a ladder despite instructions to do so (as we reported in our November, 2023 column). Worst case, the video merely confirms the plaintiff’s version of events, which would be sufficient to establish Scaffold Law liability even in the absence of the video. Stated differently, there is no downside to video surveillance when it comes to a Scaffold Law claim; it will never make you any more liable than you would otherwise be, but it could save you otherwise unwarranted liability.

If you would like more information regarding this topic please contact Thomas H. Welby at twelby@wbgllp.com or call (914) 428-2100