There have been some
recent interesting cases involving supervisor liability, Recent Decisions may Caution Supervisors. But
WorkCompCentral recently reported that a New York Court Says Worker Can Proceed With Claims Against Landlord,
Tenant and Contractor. That decision may suggest pause for those
involved in renovation and construction.
It is important to
remember that legal disputes generally include multiple categories of decisions
that require resolution. The two main categories are fact and law. Judges have
the primary responsibility for legal questions. They decide what evidence is relevant,
what is too prejudicial or inflammatory, and what is inappropriate. There are various procedural tools that empower judges to dismiss cases, or to dismiss particular parties from cases. This recent New York case illustrates the process well.
The decisions about
facts can be made by either judges (bench trials) or juries. Because of their
legal role described above, even in jury trials, judges play some role regarding
facts. In those instances, the judge will still decide what "facts"
the jury is allowed to hear about. But, the point is that factual decisions
(was the traffic signal red or green? Did the saw have a blade guard or not?) may
be made differently than legal decisions. This distinction is critical to this
case and its reminders of how the legal system functions.
Hoa Lam is the injured
worker in this New York case. He was a "day laborer" brought to the
work site by Triple 8 Construction, a contractor hired by Lin's Garden
Restaurant, which leased the space from Sky Realty. Mr. Lam was injured when a
tool malfunctioned at the work site.
Mr. Lam "filed for
and received Workers' Compensation benefits." according to the court's order. He then sued the three defendants
for personal injury alleging violations of New York labor law and
"common-law negligence." He is thus seeking civil damages from his
employer, the restaurant that hired his employer, and the company that owns the
building. The three defendants sought dismissal, which the trial court denied
and the appellate court affirmed.
The court explained that
New York labor law has codified "the common-law duty of an owner or
contractor to provide employees with a safe place to work." If a defendant
has "the authority to supervise or control the performance of the
work" then it may be liable for safety issues. The Court explained that
this potentially implicates anyone that "lends allegedly dangerous or
defective equipment to a worker that causes injury." So, that does not
necessarily mean that all three defendants are liable. That means that they
remain potentially liable.
Such a defendant can be
dismissed from the litigation, but only upon a showing that "it neither
created the alleged danger or defect in the instrumentality nor had actual or
constructive notice of the dangerous or defective condition." This Court's
analysis is not necessarily groundbreaking, concluding that the trial court
appropriately denied the defendant's motions to dismiss. It is, however,
educational on the subject of dismissal or summary judgment. It illustrates
the process for deciding how cases are dismissed by judges and how others
proceed.
This New York appellate
decision does not conclude that the three defendants are liable for the
plaintiff's injuries. The court concluded merely that the three defendants
"failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter
of law." That does not mean that the plaintiff will ultimately prevail,
but it means that the litigation will continue, because the evidence at the
time the defendants sought dismissal "fails to eliminate all triable
issues of fact."
What issues of fact? The
decision is not entirely clear. The Court did focus on one critical fact,
discussed more fully below. However, it may be that there is mystery about to
whom this particular tool belonged? Did any of the defendants make changes to
the tool which made it dangerous?" Did any of the defendants know that the
tool was in a dangerous condition, or was it apparent such that any of them
should have known? When there are no longer "triable issues of fact,"
then it may be appropriate for the assigned judge to apply the law and perhaps
dismiss parties.
When there are disputes
as to facts (who owned this tool?), those disputes are most appropriate for a
jury to decide. So, when a party seeks dismissal the judge considers the work
that has been done to clarify or establish facts. If the facts are sufficiently
clear and established, usually through evidence such as documents and testimony
(which might be depositions or affidavits or both), then the judge may apply
the law to those undisputed facts and dismiss a party from the lawsuit.
The one critical fact
noted by the court, however, is which of the three businesses was actually the
plaintiff's employer. Determinations of the employer/employee relationship can
be complex. They include obvious questions such as who hired and paid a person.
But, they may also include questions such as who directed or controlled the
person's activity on the job. This New York court explained that factual
determinations were necessary regarding which defendant here was the
"employer," and thus whether the injuries "arose out of or in
the course of his employment."
The burden on each of
the defendants, in seeking to be summarily relieved of liability, was to
"eliminate all triable issues of fact as to its freedom from
negligence." When such issues remain, the court clarified, summary judgment
is inappropriate. Lawyers know, and plaintiffs and defendants should learn,
that decisions such as this are the reason that effective and careful discovery
is critical to development of any case. The care invested in discovery may well
be what distinguishes whether a case proceeds to a jury or is dismissed by a
judge.
Over my years of practice, I worked with a vast spectrum of clients. From the Fortune 50 to individuals. And there were countless conversations about discovery, its parameters, constraints, strengths and challenges. Those engaged in litigation would be well advised to understand the importance of this process, its potential to impact rights and responsibilities. Discovery illuminates facts, enhances understanding, and can change the outcome of a case.
