A worker hit by an unsecured brick dropped from a scaffold obtained summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1). The defense’s warning-based recalcitrant worker argument failed.

---

📖 Case Summary: Vines v Judlau Contr., Inc.

The plaintiff in Vines was working beneath a scaffold while a coworker unloaded bricks from a hoist positioned above him. One brick slipped or was dropped and struck the plaintiff. Although the scaffold had perimeter netting, the Appellate Division, First Department concluded that it did not provide adequate protection from the hazard of falling materials. The plaintiff’s testimony and the foreman’s affidavit established that the injury resulted from a violation of § 240(1).

The central question on appeal was whether the defendants provided proper safety devices to protect workers from the foreseeable risk of falling objects during material handling on a scaffold.

📝 Court’s Ruling:

• The Appellate Division, First Department unanimously affirmed the motion court’s grant of the plaintiff’s motion partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1).
• The Court held that the falling object was inadequately secured and that the netting around the scaffold did not prevent the accident.
• The Court reasoned that although the netting was present, it failed to prevent the brick from hitting the plaintiff. Under First Department precedent, partially effective or ieffective safety devices do no satisfy § 240(1).
• The Court rejected the defense’s argument that the warning to stay clear of the hoist area by the plaintiff’s foreman was insufficient to support a recalcitrant worker defense.

✅ Key Legal Takeaways:

🔹 The First Department’s terse decision does not tell the whole story of this accident.

🔹 The plaintiff was a “qualified person” as defined by OSHA to become an operator of a material hoist. The defendants argued that by possessing union safety training, the plaintiff would be fully knowledgeable and would, by observations, recognize, avoid, and prevent accidents associated with material hoisting.

🔹 The follwoing affidavits of the plaintiff’s foremand and expert witness shed light on the accident and the plaintiff’s role in the accident.

🔹Attorneys and claims adjusters should recognized that if material falls from above and strikes a worker, assume significant exposure unless the object was properly secured and appropriate fall-protection systems were in place.

🔹 Netting, barriers, or partial systems that fail to stop the object are deemed inadequate.

🔹 Verbal warnings alone do not create a recalcitrant worker defense.

👉 Facing a complex litigation issue or appellate matter? Leverage my deep expertise in appellate advocacy and litigation strategy to enhance your case outcomes. Contact me for strategic consultation.

And for more legal insights tailored to insurers and risk managers, explore New York Civil Law for hundreds of other case summaries like this one — Case Summaries & Legal Updates. Clearly Explained