First Department Reinforces Labor Law § 240(1) Protections Where Defective Ladder Causes Fall Following Electrical Shock

Key Takeaways

• Defective ladder established Labor Law § 240(1) liability.
• Court distinguished electrical-shock cases.
• Comparative negligence remains irrelevant.

Facts: Electrician Falls After Defective Ladder Shifts Following Minor Shock

In Szczesiak v. Ery Tenant LLC,¹ the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the trial court and granted summary judgment to an injured electrician on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim, holding that a defective ladder that shifted, wobbled, and fell after the plaintiff sustained a minor electrical shock constituted an inadequate safety device as a matter of law. The decision distinguished cases where an electrical shock itself propelled a worker from a ladder and reaffirmed that comparative negligence is not a defense to liability under Labor Law § 240(1).

The plaintiff, an electrician, was troubleshooting lighting controls through an access panel approximately 11 feet above the floor while standing on a 10-foot A-frame ladder when he received a brief electrical shock and withdrew his hand from the wiring. He testified that the shock did not throw him from the ladder. Instead, the ladder immediately “moved,” “wobbled,” “shifted,” and fell, causing him to fall backward to the ground.

Photographs showed the ladder had bent crossbeams and worn rubber feet. The general contractor’s corporate safety manager acknowledged that a ladder in that condition should have been removed from service, and both the project manager and safety manager testified that a Baker scaffold or scissor lift could have been used and would have provided greater fall protection.

Holding: Defective Ladder Violated Labor Law § 240(1)

The First Department held that the plaintiff established entitlement to summary judgment under Section 240(1) because: 

1. the ladder was visibly defective and failed to provide proper protection; 
2. the ladder’s movement immediately before the fall demonstrated that it was an inadequate safety device; and 
3. safer alternative elevation devices were available and would have prevented the fall.  

The defendants’ engineering expert offered speculative opinions unsupported by physical inspection of the ladder or evidence in the record and therefore failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Further, the court found that the plaintiff’s alleged failure to completely de-energize the electrical system constituted, at most, comparative negligence, which is not a defense to liability under Labor Law § 240(1).

How Szczesiak Differs From Nazario and Cutaia

The First Department’s decision is notable for its careful and deliberate distinction from Nazario v. 222 Broadway, LLC² and Cutaia v. Board of Managers of the 160/170 Varick Street Condominium.³ In both of those cases, the plaintiffs were propelled from their ladders by the physical force of electrical shocks, which created genuine factual disputes as to whether additional safety devices would have prevented the accidents. Because the mechanism of the fall itself was contested and connected directly to the electrical event, summary judgment was inappropriate.

Szczesiak draws a clear line between those circumstances and the facts presented here. The plaintiff in Szczesiak remained conscious and on the ladder after the shock, suffered only a minor injury to his hand, and uniformly testified that the shock played no role in causing his fall. The fall resulted entirely from the failure of the ladder itself. Accordingly, there was no genuine dispute about the mechanism of injury, and the defective condition of the ladder was established as the sole proximate cause of the accident.

In cases where a safety device itself is the undisputed cause of a worker’s fall, litigants can expect summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1). 

If you have any questions regarding the content of this alert, please contact Radhika Shukla, associate, at rshukla@barclaydamon.com; Matthew Larkin, Torts & Products Liability Defense Practice Area chair, at mlarkin@barclaydamon.com; or another member of the firm’s Torts & Products Liability Defense Practice Area.
                                                                                                                        
¹2026 NY Slip Op 00600. 
²2016 NY Slip Op 07823.
³2022 NY Slip Op 02834.