A number of recent Court of Appeals decisions addressing Labor Law §2401 have left parties struggling for a clearer understanding of a statute that has traditionally been notoriously difficult to apply.2 However, these new cases highlight how the court’s interpretation of this strict liability statute has moved away from a simple literal interpretation toward a nuanced emphasis on circumstantial reasonableness.
For example, in Dahar v. Holland Ladder & Mfg. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 1332, the court refused to impose liability under §240 where a factory worker fell from a ladder while cleaning a finished wall component product, stating, “we have not extended the statute’s coverage to every activity that might fit within its literal terms.” The court noted that while “cleaning” and “structures” are specifically mentioned in §240, and those terms have been applied beyond construction settings, the claimants’ reliance on the wording of the law was “too simple.”
