In Runner v. New York Stock Exch., Inc. (13 NY3d 599, 604 [2009] the plaintiff and several of his co-workers were instructed to move a large reel of wire, which weighed approximately 800 pounds, down a set of about four stairs. To prevent the reel from rolling freely down the stairs, the workers tied one end of a 10-foot length of rope to the reel and then wrapped the rope around a horizontally-placed metal bar which was positioned horizontally across a door jamb at the same level of the reel. The plaintiff and his co-workers held the loose end of the rope while two other workers began to push the reel down the stairs. As the reel began to descend, it pulled the plaintiff and his co-workers, who were acting as counterweights, toward the metal bar. The plaintiff injured both his hands when they were jammed into the bar (id. at 602). In finding that the plaintiff was entitled to recovery under Labor Law 240 (1), the Court of Appeals reasoned: "Here, as the District Court correctly found, the harm to plaintiff was the direct consequence of the application of the force of gravity to the reel. Indeed, the injury to plaintiff was every bit as direct a consequence of the descent of the reel as would have been an injury to a worker positioned in the descending reel's path. The latter worker would certainly be entitled to recover under section 240 (1) and there appears no sensible basis to deny plaintiff the same legal recourse" (id. at 604.) The plaintiff acted as a counter-weight to an 800 pound reel of wire that was being pushed down a flight of stairs. The Court of Appeals held that since the reel had to be moved from a height to a lower elevation, the danger to be guarded against arose from the force the reel's descent and Labor Law 240(1) was applicable, Id. In Runner, the Court of Appeals repeated it's holding in Ross v. Curtis-Palmer and stated that "Labor Law 240(1) was designed to prevent the type of accidents in which a scaffold, hoist, stay or other protective device proved inadequate to shield the injured worker from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or a person, Id., at 604. The plaintiff and his co-workers were moving a large reel of wire, weighing some 800 pounds, down a set of about four stairs. The workers were instructed to tie one end of a 10--foot length of rope to the reel and then to wrap the rope around a metal bar placed horizontally across a door jamb on the same level as the reel. As it descended, the reel pulled the plaintiff and his co-workers, acting as counterweights, toward the metal bar. The plaintiff was drawn into the bar, injuring his hands as they jammed against it, because "the expedient of wrapping the rope around the bar proved ineffective to regulate the rate of the reel's descent." (Runner, 13 NY3d at 602.) Experts testified at trial that a pulley or hoist should have been used to move the reel safely down the stairs and that the jerry-rigged device actually employed was inadequate. The Court of Appeals ruled that Labor Law 240 (1) applied, stating, "the causal connection between the object's inadequately regulated descent and plaintiff's injury was, as noted, unmediated or, demonstrably, at least as unmediated as it would have been had plaintiff been situated paradigmatically at the rope's opposite end." (Id. at 605.)