Construction accidents cause injuries to workers.

Plaintiff was injured while using an allegedly defective grinder owned by defendant Beys to cut exposed steel from a concrete floor at Bellevue Hospital. Plaintiff was employed by the construction manager and Beys was the contractor on the project.

Plaintiff sued for violations of Labor Law §§200 and 241(6) and for common law negligence. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint and all the cross-motions regarding the Labor Law violations but denied Beys' motion to dismiss the action for common law negligence.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed holding that there was conflicting testimony as to whether "plaintiff selected the grinder from his employer's gang box or was given it by Beys" creating an issue of fact as to whether there was a bailment of the grinder. If there was a bailment, then of further issue would arise as to whether the bailment was for the mutual benefit of Beys and plaintiff's employer which would render Beys liable to plaintiff for "providing him with dangerous equipment, notwithstanding that the defect was patent".

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Appellate Division stating that "[t]here are unresolved factual issues bearing on whether Beys owed any duty to plaintiff with respect to the condition of the grinder. There is conflicting evidence as to whether the grinder was owned by Beys or Turner [the construction manager], and as to the circumstances under which the plaintiff came to possess the grinder".

This is another example of how, in many construction accidents, there are issues of fact that need to be resolved at trial.

Beazer v. NYC Health and Hospitals Corp. & Beys Contracting, Inc., NYLJ, 12/16/11, 24:5