Attorney's Column
Staged Accident Could Be the Sole Proximate
Cause of Plaintiff’s Injuries: Appellate Court
Staged Accident Could Be the Sole Proximate Cause of Plaintiff’s Injuries: Appellate Court
By THOMAS H. WELBY, P.E., ESQ., and GREGORY J. SPAUN, ESQ.
It’s a gross understatement to say that New York’s “Scaffold Law” is the bane of the construction industry and the business community. Scaffold Law results in ever-increasing insurance costs and ultimately stunts the development it is ostensibly designed to make safer.
Now there’s a glimmer of hope in Sections 200, 240(1), and 241(6) of the Labor Law—where, specifically, an injured plaintiff in a gravity-related accident is said to be the “sole proximate cause” of his or her injuries. That is to say, there could be nothing else that contributed to the injuries other than the plaintiff’s own actions. In a recent court ruling, the Scaffold Law’s absolute liability will no longer apply. Unfortunately, courts are quite strict in interpreting what actions constitute sole proximate cause.
One perverse side effect of the Scaffold Law is the increasing frequency of staged accidents, where a plaintiff—who is not always a construction worker—will enter a jobsite and climb up on to a ladder or scaffold (or other elevation) and throw him or herself from it. There are currently some lawsuits working their way through the court system under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, a tool once used to topple the Mafia, alleging that these claims are part of an orchestrated scheme between criminal alien smugglers, dishonest doctors and dishonest lawyers to churn settlements and verdicts out of the insurance industry through their insureds—you! Without delving into these allegations, an appellate court, in the recent case of Anguisaca-Morales v St. Paul and St. Andrew Condominium Association, held that video evidence created an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff intentionally fell from the ladder, thus making himself the sole proximate cause of his injuries.
Background
In July 2020, the plaintiff fell three feet from a ladder. Video surveillance footage of the job site showed that at the time of his fall, the plaintiff was leaning to the side, apparently throwing himself from the ladder. Importantly, the ladder did not shift until after the plaintiff fell. The plaintiff sued and ultimately made the typical Scaffold Law motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
In opposition, the defendants noted the video evidence showing that the plaintiff apparently threw himself from the ladder, and that the ladder did not move until after the plaintiff was already off it. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion, finding that the plaintiff’s testimony that the ladder moved prior to the fall was sufficient to grant summary judgment to him. The defendants moved to both reargue and to amend the complaint to assert a counterclaim for fraud based on the staged nature of the accident. The court denied both motions. The defendants appealed.
Decision
The appellate court held that under the circumstances of the video evidence, it was not sufficient to grant the plaintiff’s motion, and thus reversed the trial court. The appellate court reasoned that the video evidence created a question of fact as to whether the plaintiff intentionally fell; if such was indeed the case, then the plaintiff would be considered the sole proximate cause of his injuries and, thus, outside the ambit of the Scaffold Law. Accordingly, the appellate court directed that the matter be tried. However, the appellate court did not go so far as to permit the assertion of the fraud counterclaim, finding that it was not sufficient.
Comment
While the appellate court did not go so far as to grant the motion to assert a fraud counterclaim in this particular case, it denied what would ordinarily be a slam-dunk motion for summary judgment, and it referred the issue of whether the plaintiff intentionally caused his own injuries to a jury. Crucial to the appellate court was the video evidence which “created a question of fact as to whether the plaintiff intentionally fell.”
The lesson to be gleaned from this decision is the importance of video surveillance on the jobsite to catch such ne’er-do-wells in the act and establish that they, by intentionally causing their own injuries, were the sole proximate cause of their injuries. Even if the accident is not staged, a video record will establish exactly how the accident happened, and whether the plaintiff could nevertheless be considered the sole proximate cause of their injuries by, for instance, failing to tie off a ladder despite instructions to do so (as we reported in our November 2023 column).
Worst case is that the video merely confirms the plaintiff’s version of events, which would be sufficient to establish Scaffold Law liability even in the absence of the video. Stated differently, there is no downside to video surveillance when it comes to a Scaffold Law claim; it will never make you any more liable than you would otherwise be, but it could save you otherwise unwarranted liability.
About the authors: Thomas H. Welby, Esq., P.E., is General Counsel to the CIC and the BCA. He is the founder of and senior counsel at Welby, Brady & Greenblatt, LLP. Gregory J. Spaun, Esq., is General Counsel to the Queens and Bronx Building Association and a partner with the firm.
Published: June 19, 2025.