Articles Posted in Scaffold Accidents

Among all construction accidents, falls are the leading cause of death. Contractors are required by law to protect their employees from falling by supplying and ensuring the use of legally required safeguards that can prevent personal injuries and save lives.

Flintlock Construction Services LLC, the Mamaroneck-based general contractor for the construction of a 23-story hotel in Midtown Manhattan at 325 W. 33rd St. (see picture) did not follow these rules and OSHA proposed a penalty of of $249,920 and cited for seven violations of OSHA‘s fall protection and scaffolding standards that involved workers exposed to scaffolding accidents and potential fatal falls of up to 26 feet. Flintlock failed to provide and ensure the use of fall protection for workers on the scaffold. The scaffold lacked a safe means of access, the work platforms were not fully planked and the scaffold was not tied off to restrain it from tipping. Flintock also failed to provide training on the hazards associated with erecting scaffolds and failed to have a competent person determine the feasibility of providing fall protection for workers erecting and dismantling the scaffolding. Additionally a scaffold walkway was found too narrow and an anchorage was found inadequate for the fall protection system.

3 other contractors were also cited. V&P Altitude Corp., a Brooklyn-based siding contractor was cited for lack of fall protection; no safe access to the scaffolding; not fully planking the scaffold platforms; failing to tie off the scaffolding; and not locking mobile scaffold wheels and casters. SMK Associates, a masonry contractor, was cited for electrical hazards and failing to provide eye and face protection and Maspeth Steel Fabricators Inc failed to provide training on the hazards of working on scaffolds.

In a New York construction accident case in which a worker suffered injury when he fell from a scaffold The Court rejected the recalcitrant worker defense. In Mazurett v. Rochester City School District, decided by The New York Appellate Division, 4th Department on October 7, 2011, the construction worker sustained injury when he fell from a collapsing scaffold at a construction site. In affirming the granting of summary judgment for the plaintiff on his 240(1) claim the Court rejected the defense that the plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker whose conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident holding;

“Plaintiffs met their initial burden of establishing a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The fact that the scaffold collapsed “is sufficient to establish as a matter of law that the [scaffold] was not so ‘placed . . . as to give proper protection’ to plaintiff” pursuant to the statute (Dean v City of Utica, 75 AD3d 1130, 1131; see Tapia v Mario Genovesi & Sons, Inc., 72 AD3d 800, 801; see also Cantineri v Carrere, 60 AD3d 1331). In opposition to the motion, defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff’s “own conduct, rather than any violation of Labor Law § 240 (1), was the sole proximate cause of his accident” (Cahill v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 NY3d 35, 40). We reject defendant’s contention that plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker whose own actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident. Although defendant submitted evidence that plaintiff was instructed to use a more stable scaffold and to use a ladder to ascend the scaffold, defendant failed to submit any evidence that plaintiff refused to use a particular scaffold or ladder that was provided to him. “The mere presence of [other safety devices] somewhere at the work site” does not satisfy defendant’s duty to provide appropriate safety devices (Zimmer v Chemung County Performing Arts, 65 NY2d 513, 524, rearg denied 65 NY2d 1054; see Williams v City of Niagara Falls, 43 AD3d 1426; Whiting v Dave Hennig, Inc., 28 AD3d 1105, 1106). Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff was negligent, we conclude that his own conduct cannot be deemed the sole proximate cause of the accident inasmuch as plaintiffs established that a statutory violation was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries (see Blake v Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1 NY3d 280, 290; Calderon v Walgreen Co., 72 AD3d 1532, appeal dismissed 15 NY3d 900).”