Hagins v. General Foods Corp., 81 N.Y.2d 921 (1993)
The “recalcitrant worker” defense to Labor Law § 240(1) liability is unavailable when the owner or employer fails to provide adequate safety devices; an instruction to avoid unsafe equipment is not a substitute for a safety device.
Summary
Hagins sued General Foods for injuries sustained in a fall from a broken ladder, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). General Foods impleaded Hagins’ employer, C.P. Ward, Inc. Hagins was instructed not to climb the ladder without assistance, but did so when his supervisor left. The Court of Appeals held that Hagins’ contributory negligence was not a defense and that the “recalcitrant worker” defense did not apply because no adequate safety devices were provided. The Court affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment on the issue of General Foods’ liability.
Facts
Hagins was injured when he fell from a ladder at a General Foods plant. The ladder, owned by Hagins’ employer, C.P. Ward, Inc., was broken a week prior to the accident. Hagins was instructed not to climb the ladder unless someone secured it. Hagins climbed the ladder unassisted when his supervisor left the area.
Procedural History
Hagins sued General Foods, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). General Foods impleaded C.P. Ward, Inc. The trial court granted Hagins’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of General Foods’ liability. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the “recalcitrant worker” defense applies to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim when the employer provides no adequate safety devices, but instructs the worker not to use unsafe equipment?
Holding
No, because the “recalcitrant worker” defense requires a showing that the injured worker refused to use safety devices that were provided by the owner or employer. An instruction to avoid using unsafe equipment is not itself a “safety device.”
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that contributory negligence is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim. The Court stated, “It is well settled that the injured’s contributory negligence is not a defense to a claim based on Labor Law § 240 (1) and that the injured’s culpability, if any, does not operate to reduce the owner/contractor’s liability for failing to provide adequate safety devices.”
The Court also rejected the “recalcitrant worker” defense, stating that the defense “requires a showing that the injured worker refused to use the safety devices that were provided by the owner or employer.” Because no adequate safety devices were provided, the defense was inapplicable. The Court emphasized that an instruction to avoid using unsafe equipment does not constitute providing a “safety device”. The court cited Zimmer v. Chemung County Performing Arts, stating that this defense is inapplicable where no adequate safety devices are provided. In effect, the Court clarified that an employer cannot avoid liability under Labor Law § 240(1) by simply telling an employee to avoid unsafe conditions; the employer must affirmatively provide adequate safety devices.