MICHAEL H. STOLT, RESPONDENT, v. GENERAL FOODS CORPORATION, DEFENDANT,v. C.P.
WARD, INC., THIRD-PARTY APPELLANT.
81 N.Y.2d 918, 613 N.E.2d 556, 597 N.Y.S.2d 650 (1993).
April 5, 1993
4 No. 57 (1993 N.Y. Int. 76)
Decided April 5, 1993
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Thomas G. Collins, for Appellant.
J. Raymond Brown, for Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM:
The judgment appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division
brought up for review should be affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff was injured when he fell from a ladder while working on a
construction job at a plant owned by defendant General Foods Corp. The
ladder, which was owned by the contractor C.P. Ward, Inc., had been
broken about a week earlier, and plaintiff had been instructed not to
climb it unless someone else was there to secure it for him.
Nonetheless, plaintiff attempted to climb the ladder without
assistance when his supervisor left the work area.
Plaintiff commenced the present action for damages against the plant
owner, General Foods Corp., alleging a violation of Labor Law
240(1). General Foods thereafter impleaded C.P. Ward, Inc.,
plaintiff's employer, as third-party defendant.
Contrary to C.P. Ward's arguments on this appeal, the court below
properly granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on
the issue of defendant General Foods' liability. The mere allegation
that plaintiff had disobeyed his supervisor's instructions when he
climbed the broken ladder does not provide a basis for a defense
against plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. 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 (e.g., Bland
v Manocherian, 66 NY2d 452). Further, it cannot be said that
SNIPPETS:
C.P. WARD, INC., THIRD-PARTY APPELLANT.
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
The judgment appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division brought up for review
Plaintiff was injured when he fell from a ladder while working on a construction job at a
The ladder, which was owned by the contractor C.P. Ward, Inc., had been broken about a week
plaintiff attempted to climb the ladder without assistance when his supervisor left the work
Plaintiff commenced the present action for damages against the plant owner, General Foods
Contrary to C.P. Ward's arguments on this appeal, the court below properly granted
The mere allegation that plaintiff had disobeyed his supervisor's instructions when he
It is well settled that the injured's contributory negligence is not a defense to a claim
Further, it cannot be said that plaintiff's alleged disregard of his supervisor's order was a
Finally, the so-called "recalcitrant worker" defense cannot be invoked in these circumstances
& Plastics Corp., 90 AD2d 361, appeal dismissed 58 NY2d 824).
That defense, which has been widely recognized by the lower courts in this State, requires a
|
