Plaintiff loses scaffolding claim at trial

The New York State scaffolding law is well-known to developers. It imposes absolute liability on them if their employees suffer an injury from inadequate safety provisions which cause them to fall to the ground. These cases are usually filed in state court, but this one went to trial in federal court, and the plaintiff lost. The Court of Appeals (Parker, Lee and Merriam) upholds the verdict.

The case is Csikos v. 230 Park South Apartments, a summary order issued on January 25. Plaintiff says he fell from a A-frame ladder that was not safely secured, suffering injuries. He wanted summary judgment on this issue, but the district court held the jury could find the ladder was properly secured and that plaintiff's elevation from the floor was minimal and did not require fall protection. Note that many of these cases are decided in the plaintiff's favor on a summary judgment motion, as the record is often clear that there was something wrong with the safety provisions when the plaintiff had to take part in elevated work, either on a scaffold or a ladder. But these cases sometimes go to trial on this issue. Like this case.

One reason plaintiff was properly denied summary judgment was that a New York court held in a different case that “[a] fall from a ladder does not in and of itself establish that the ladder did not provide appropriate protection” and that “[d]efendants would not be subject to statutory liability if plaintiff simply lost his footing while climbing a properly secured, non-defective extension ladder that did not malfunction.” That ruling led to the trial, which plaintiff lost. 

As for plaintiff's claim that he deserved judgment as a matter of law at trial, and that the case should have been taken from the jury and decided by the judge in his favor after the evidence was submitted that argument fails also. Bear in mind that it is quite difficult to second-guess a jury's factual determinations at trial. We leave it to juries to decide what happened in the case, and if there is evidence on both sides, the jury's decision to credit one side over the other is almost never overturned on the basis that the losing side had better evidence than the winner.

In this case, 230 Park put on evidence "that the sequence of events leading to the fall did not occur in the way that Csikos recited—ultimately attempting to make its point that 230 Park (through the contractor it hired for the job) adequately equipped Csikos for the needs of the demolition project and did not breach its obligations under NYLL § 240(1)." Instead, while Csikos testified that "he was standing on the fourth step of the ladder when it 'moved,' causing him to lose his balance and fall," 230 Park presented evidence that Csikos told ambulance attendants that he fell after “he missed the bottom step of the ladder,” not that the ladder moved. The jury was allowed to believe 230 Park over plaintiff on this issue. In addition, 230 Park's resident manager of the building, who was present after the incident, testified that "the ladder was standing upright, as well as pictures that demonstrated the height and width of the hallway in which the demolition work occurred." The jury was permitted to believe that testimony.