The decision in Barraco v. First Lenox Terrace Assoc.  demonstrates two points.  The first is that Labor Law sec. 240(1), as we know, protects workers from using a lack of common sense.  The worker in this case injured himself when he fell from an unsupported corrugated metal overhang on  a pedestrian bridge.  The Appellate Division, First Department held that the property owners could still be liable under section 240(1) even though the sidewalk bridge subcontractor and engineering consultant may have had an understanding that the bridge was meant only to protect
pedestrians and workers on the ground level from falling debris, and
was not to be used as a work platform.  The First Department relied on the admissions of the owners’ property manager, who stated he knew from the outset that the bridge would be
used by workers to access scaffolds.

This case also demonstrates the wide-reaching application of Walls v. Turner Contr. Co.  In this case, the First Department concluded that an issue of fact existed as to whether the engineering consultant can be held liable under sec. 240(1) as the owners’ statutory agent.  The First Department noted that the documentary evidence did not make clear whether the engineering consultant lacked supervisory control over the general contractor’s workers and that worker safety was the general contractor’s responsibility.  The First Department distinguished the facts in this case from those Hutchinson v. City of New York (see post here).