STRICT LIABILITY UNDER NEW YORK LABOR LAW APPLIED TO THE SPOUSE OF HOMEOWNER AFTER A WORKER IS INJURED DURING CONSTRUCTION OF HOME

IN A RECENT DECISION, THE STRICT LIABILITY OF NEW YORK LABOR LAW SECTIONS 240(1) AND 241(6) WAS HELD TO APPLY TO THE NON-TITLED SPOUSE OF A ONE-FAMILY DWELLING OWNER.

IN FISHER V. COGHLAN, ET AL, 2004 WL 1325775, 2004 N.Y SLIP.OP. 04890 (4TH DEPT. 2004), THE PLAINTIFF  WAS INJURED WHEN A SCAFFOLD COLLAPSED BENEATH HIM.  AT THE TIME OF HIS INJURY, THE PLAINTIFF WAS INSTALLING A ROOF ON A ONE-FAMILY DWELLING BEING CONSTRUCTED BY THE DEFENDANTS, SANDRA AND JEFFREY COGHLAN.  JEFFREY COGHLAN, ALTHOUGH MARRIED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, SANDRA COGHLAN, WAS NOT NAMED ON THE DEED. THE PLAINTIFF ASSERTED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE, AS WELL AS ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF  LABOR LAW SECTIONS 200, 240(1) AND 241(6).

UNDER NEW YORK LABOR LAW SECTIONS 240(1) AND 241(6) ACONTRACTORS OR OWNERS AND THEIR AGENTS@ WHO ADIRECT OR CONTROL THE WORK@ ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE CERTAIN MEASURES OF SAFETY FOR WORKERS.  A VIOLATION OF EITHER SECTION OF THE LABOR LAW THAT RESULTS IN AN INJURY TRIGGERS STRICT LIABILITY.  HOWEVER, THE STATUTES EXEMPT FROM EXPOSURE OWNERS OF ONE OR TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS.  UPON THIS EXEMPTION, THE DEFENDANTS MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

WHILE SANDRA COGHLAN=S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS GRANTED, THE COURT DENIED THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OF JEFFREY COGHLAN.  THE COURT NOTED THAT MR. COGHLAN WAS NOT NAMED ON THE PROPERTY DEED.

IN AFFIRMING THE LOWER COURT=S DECISION, THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT AGREED THAT JEFFREY COGHLAN=S MARRIAGE TO THE PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT HE WAS NOT AN AOWNER@ OF THE PROPERTY.  THE COURT REASONED THAT THE EXEMPTIONS PROVIDED BY LABOR LAW SECTIONS 240(1) AND 241(6) APPLY ONLY TO TITLED PROPERTY OWNERS OF ONE OR TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS.  THE COURT REASONED THAT THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT IS MARRIED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER IS IRRELEVANT.  FURTHERMORE, THE COURT REFUSED TO EXTEND THE DEFINITION OF AOWNER@ IN ORDER TO INCLUDE NON-TITLED SPOUSES.

THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT THEN DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS A TRIABLE ISSUE OF FACT AS TO WHETHER JEFFERY COGHLAN WAS ACTING AS A CONTRACTOR OR AGENT OF THE OWNER WHO EXERCISED DIRECTION OR CONTROL OVER THE PROJECT.  IN SUPPORT OF THAT DECISION, THE COURT NOTED THAT JEFFREY COGHLAN WAS ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN DESIGNING THE PROJECT, HIRING AND PAYING VARIOUS SUBCONTRACTORS, AND FURNISHING MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT.  THE COURT WAS NOT PERSUADED BY COGHLAN=S ARGUMENT THAT THE SUBCONTRACTORS AND WORKERS AKNEW THAT HE WAS THE HOMEOWNER@ RATHER THAN A GENERAL CONTRACTOR.

IT IS CLEAR THAT THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT REQUIRES STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM AOWNER@ AS IT APPLIES TO LABOR LAW SECTIONS 240(1) AND 241(6). IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT VERY LITTLE IS REQUIRED TO CREATE A QUESTION OF FACT AS TO THE ISSUE OF ADIRECTION OR SUPERVISION.@ AS A RESULT, POLICY HOLDERS SHOULD BE ADVISED TO KEEP ALL NON-TITLED FAMILY MEMBERS OUT OF THE PLANNING OR SUPERVISION OF A WORK PROJECT ON THEIR PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PREVENT THE  UNFORTUNATE TURN OF EVENTS IN FISHER.

MICHAEL J. CHMIEL