In Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Associates (96 N.Y.2d 259 [2001]), the Court of Appeals reviewed two cases in which each plaintiff worker was injured by a falling object while standing and working on a ladder. In neither case did the plaintiff fall from the ladder. Although, acknowledging that section 240 (1) "applies to both 'falling worker' and 'falling object' cases," the Court (at 267, 269) held that neither worker was entitled to the benefits of section 240 because in neither case was it demonstrated that the ladder was inadequate or that there was any "legally sufficient causal connection of the ladder to the injury." In each Narducci case, although the force of gravity played a part, there was no causal connection between inadequate safety device and the injury. In both of the Narducci cases it was not a nonfunctioning safety device that caused the object to fall. Each of the falling objects were clearly general hazards of the workplace, but not hazards contemplated to be subject to Labor Law 240 (1). Thus the Court opined: "Not every worker who falls at a construction site, and not every object that falls on a worker, gives rise to the extraordinary protections of Labor Law 240 (1). Rather, liability is contingent upon the existence of a hazard contemplated in section 240 (1) and the failure to use, or the inadequacy of, a safety device of the kind enumerated therein." (Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 NY2d 259, 267.)