McLeod had been employed by a third party subcontractor at a construction site, where East Coast Construction was the lead contractor. His employer had told him to use a wooden beam to support the jib of a crane, while it was disassembled. The beam struck him, and he was injured. He and his wife took action against East Coast, and against the owner of the site, seeking damages, on the basis of alleged violations of New York Labor Law and common law negligence.
East Coast Construction had asked the Supreme Court of Kings County, NY, for a summary judgement, dismissing the causes of action. The Supreme Court granted the summary judgement for dismissal of claims made under NY Labor Law sections 240(1) and 241(6), but denied summary judgement on claims made under Labor Law section 200 and common law negligence.
East Coast Construction took the decision to the Appellate Division, asking it reconsider the Kings County court’s decision not to dismiss the claims under section 200 and common law. The appeals court decided that East Coast Construction had provided evidence showing that it did not have the authority to control how the crane had been dismantled. McLeod, on the other hand, had not been able to supply evidence that East Coast Construction did have this authority. On that basis, the appeals court supported East Coast’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissal of the claims made under Labor Law section 200 and common law negligence.
The Appellate Division considered East Coast Construction’s application for summary judgement for dismissal of claims relating to Labor Law section 200. In a summary published by the New York Law Journal, the court is reported as saying that, “To be held liable under Labor Law section 200 and for common-law negligence arising from the manner in which work is performed at a work site, a general contractor must have actually exercised supervision and control over the work performed at the site.”
General authority over the site, where this is only for overseeing the progress of the job or checking the quality of the job was not enough to make East Coast Construction liable: the lead contractor must have had the authority to control the work being carried out, and to correct unsafe practices, for it to be liable. As East Coast had provided evidence it did not have this authority, and McLeod had not provided evidence that it did, East Coast could not be liable under this section of the law.
