Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co

In Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co (78 N.Y.2d 509, 583 N.E.2d 932, 577 N.Y.S.2d 219 [1991]), the Court discussed the occupational hazards against which this statute was directed. The Court pointed out that, while the hazards themselves are not spelled out in the statute, they can be inferred from the "protective means" set forth in the statute "for the hazards' avoidance"--scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders and so forth (id. at 513). The Court explained: "The various tasks in which these devices are customarily needed or employed share a common characteristic. All entail a significant risk inherent in the particular task because of the relative elevation at which the task must be performed or at which materials or loads must be positioned or secured. The contemplated hazards are those related to the effects of gravity where protective devices are called for either because of a difference between the elevation level of the required work and a lower level or a difference between the elevation level where the worker is positioned and the higher level of the materials or load being hoisted or secured. It is because of the special hazards in having to work in these circumstances, we believe, that the Legislature has seen fit to give the worker the exceptional protection that section 240 (1) provides." (Id. at 514.) The Court of Appeals explained that: "The contemplated hazards are those related to the effects of gravity where protective devices are called for either because of a difference between the elevation level of the required work and a lower level or a difference between the elevation level where the worker is positioned and the higher level of the materials or load being hoisted or secured."