Owner Not Liable for Labor Law Violations

Facts: As part of his duties, a maintenance worker serviced the lights in an office building owned by a real estate company (owner) and managed by an office management corporation (manager). One of the building's tenants contacted the manager and requested that the worker change an overhead light that had stopped working.

When the worker arrived on the tenant's floor, one of its employees showed him the location of the light that had gone out. When changing the light bulb didn't fix the problem, the worker decided to replace the ballast. Despite the fact that this involved working with “live” wires, he didn't ask to have the power shut off. While changing the ballast, the worker received an electrical shock.

The worker sued the owner, the manager, and the tenant for negligence and violating state labor laws. They asked a New York court for a judgment in their favor without a trial.

The court concluded that the owner, the manager, and the tenant did not exercise supervision and control over the worker—which was required to make them liable for his injuries. But because, according to the trial court, they had “notice of the dangerous condition which caused the worker's injuries, that is, the flow of electrical current to the light bulb and ballast that the worker was in the process of changing when he was injured,” it wouldn't dismiss the worker's claims against them. The owner, manager, and tenant appealed.

Decision: The appeals court reversed the trial court's ruling.

Reasoning: The appeals court disagreed with the trial court that the owner, manager, and tenant were automatically liable for the worker's injury solely because they may have had notice of the unsafe manner in which he was fixing the light. An injured worker who alleged labor law violations or negligence had to prove that his accident arose from either: (1) dangerous or defective conditions at a work site; or (2) the manner in which the work was performed, the appeals court explained.

The trial court had determined that the worker's injury “did not arise from a defective condition inherent on the property, but rather, arose as a result of the allegedly defective means utilized by him to perform his work.” That is, the fact that electricity was flowing into the light fixture was not a defective condition; it was not dangerous until the worker decided to change the ballast without turning off the electrical current.

When a worker's claims arise out of defects or dangers in the manner in which he did the work, such as in this case, the worker must show that the party he's suing has the authority to supervise or control the performance of the work. The test for whether a party has this authority is whether it has responsibility for the specific manner in which the work is performed.

The appeals court noted that, “although property owners, managers, and tenants often have a general authority to oversee the progress of the work, mere general supervisory authority at a work site for that purpose or for inspecting the work product is insufficient to impose liability under the state's labor laws.” Here, the owner, manager, and tenant demonstrated that they didn't have the authority to supervise or control the performance of the worker's specific duties. And the worker was unable to show that they did. Accordingly, the trial court should have dismissed the worker's claims against them.

• Pilato v. 866 U.N. Plaza Associates, LLC, et al., October 2010