Ronquillo v. The New York Botanical Garden
1:13-cv-09115
S.D.N.Y.Nov 17, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Carlos Ronquillo, an asbestos handler employed by subcontractor Abatement Unlimited, fell from a ladder while performing asbestos abatement at the NY Botanical Garden’s Mertz Library during a night shift and suffered back injuries requiring later surgery.
- Howell was the general contractor for the renovation; NYBG was the owner. Howell provided a brief site safety orientation but did not supply or require specific ladder‑securing devices or scaffolding for the abatement work.
- Abatement foreman German Torres assigned Ronquillo and a coworker ladders to perform the work; no assistants were assigned to secure ladders and no alternative access (scaffold or secured lines) was provided.
- Ronquillo’s contemporaneous accounts (a Spanish report by the union steward and a workers’ compensation form) state the ladder slipped on wet plastic, causing the fall; some later internal records were less explicit but did not directly contradict the slipping-ladder account.
- Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on liability under New York Labor Law § 240(1); the court considered whether defendants were strictly liable for failing to furnish proper protective devices.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability under NY Labor Law §240(1) — failure to furnish protective devices | Ronquillo: Howell/NYBG failed to provide devices (anchors, harnesses, scaffolds) or secure ladders; ladder slipped on wet plastic and caused injury | Howell/NYBG: They provided orientations; work method was by subcontractor; no proof ladder slipped — plaintiff simply lost balance | Court: Granted partial summary judgment. Plaintiff established prima facie §240(1) violation and proximate causation because ladder was unsecured and slipped on wet plastic |
| Sufficiency of evidence where accident was unwitnessed | Ronquillo relies on contemporaneous reports and his affidavit describing ladder slip | Defendants point to variances in reports and absence of independent eyewitness deposition to create triable issue | Court: Unwitnessed accident does not preclude summary judgment where plaintiff’s uncontradicted account and contemporaneous reports support it; defendants failed to raise a factual dispute beyond speculation |
| Recalcitrant‑worker defense (refusal to use available safety devices) | Ronquillo: No visible, available safety devices were present; he did not refuse any device | Defendants: Torres told workers to support each other’s ladders, implying alternatives existed or plaintiff refused safer measures | Court: Rejected defense. General instruction to "support each other" is not an available safety device; defendants did not show plaintiff refused usable safety equipment |
Key Cases Cited
- Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494 (1993) (owner/contractor nondelegable duty under §240(1))
- Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, Inc., 1 N.Y.3d 280 (2003) (plaintiff must show statutory violation and proximate cause)
- Perez v. NYC P’ship Hous. Dev. Fund Co., 55 A.D.3d 419 (1st Dep’t 2008) (liability may attach when adequate safety devices to prevent ladder slipping are absent)
- Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply, Inc., 82 N.Y.2d 555 (1993) (instruction to avoid unsafe practices is not equivalent to providing safety devices)