New York Labor Law §240(1) imposes liability on an owner or general contractor for failing to provide certain safety devices where the lack of those devices or a defective safety device causes a worker to be injured. To fall within the Labor Law’s purview, the worker must be engaged in a “protected activity” at the time of the accident. Protected activities as enumerated in the Labor Law, include “erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning, or pointing of a building or structure.”1 Tasks such as “inspection” or “routine maintenance” are generally found to be unprotected activities, and thus outside the purview of the Labor Law. However, what qualifies as “inspection” or “routine maintenance” has been the subject of much debate.
The courts have closely scrutinized a worker’s task and the circumstances surrounding the accident to determine whether an activity is protected or unprotected. In ascertaining whether an activity is protected or not, the New York courts have struggled to decide whether certain “inspections,” “routine maintenance,” or any other typically unprotected tasks which may be incidental to a protected activity fall within this protected class.
Inspections
