The integral-to-the-work doctrine to Labor Law § 241 (6) has received considerable attention this past year. New York Civil Law is waiting on the New York Court of Appeals' decision in Ruisech v Structure Tone Inc., which was argued last month (see post here). The Court of Appeals addressed the doctrine earlier this year in Bazdaric v Almah Partners LLC. In Bazdaric, the Court explained that the integral-to-the-work doctrine "applies only when the dangerous condition is inherent to the task at hand, and not when a defendant or third party's negligence created a danger that was avoidable without obstructive the work or imperiling the worker."
Last week, the New York Appellate Division, First Judicial Department in Cioppa v ESRT 112 W. 34th Street L.P. addressed an alleged construction site accident concerning a piece of plywood used as temporary flooring over an unfinished and uneven concrete floor. The plaintiff claimed that he fell after stepping into a hole in a piece of plywood and then into a hole in the floor. The plywood was deliberately placed on the stripped floor as a protective measure in response to the plaintiff's complaints. The motion court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on a violation of New York Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (e) (2).
Analyzing the provision, the First Department stated that section 23-1.7 (e) (2) "does not apply to all potential tripping hazards but only to 'accumulations of dirt and debris,' 'scattered tools and materials,' and 'sharp projections.'" The First Department concluded that, as a matter of law, the plywood board, notwithstanding its hole, could not be described as an "'accumlation[] of . . . debris' or as part of a "'scatter[ing]' of 'tools and materials.'"
You might be asking, "What does this case have to do with the integral-to the-work doctrine?" The appellant relied on the doctrine and the Court of Appeals' holding in Bazdaric, arguing that the plywood could not be considered integral to the plaintiff's work. In a footnote, the First Department alludes to the appellant's argument--without referring to the integral to work doctrine--and concludes that the reasoning in Bazdaric does not readily apply to the circumstances of this accident because the "deliberately placed plywood board" does not constitute "an 'accumulation[] of . . . debris' or 'scattered . . . material' within the meaning of section 23-1.7 (e) (2). In the same footnote, the First Department distinguishes the facts of the appellant's alleged accident from those in Lourenco v City of New York. In Lourenco, the worker tripped on plastic sheeting that had been discarded from a previous stage of the work. Under those circumstances, the First Department concluded that the plastic sheeting constituted "debris" and therefore, supported a violation of section 23-1.7 (e) (2).
The appellate briefs in Cioppa discuss the integral-to-the-work doctrine in depth. Even though the First Department decided the appeal on different grounds, it is valuable to review the appellate briefs.
Appellant's Brief: Download Cioppa Appellant's Brief
Third-Party Defendant/Respondent's Brief: Download Third-Party Defendant Respondent's Brief
Defendant/Respondent's Brief: Download Defendant's Respondent's Brief
Reply Brief: Download Reply Brief