Miraglia v. H & L Holding Corp.

36 A.D.3d 456 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007

Facts

Plaintiff, a worker, was impaled by a steel bar and paralyzed while walking on unsecured planks across a trench at a work site. The employer's testimony indicated workers were permitted to use planks if doubled, but expert testimony showed even doubled planks were inadequate. Defendant argued plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker.

Issue

Did the trial court err in finding liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) despite the defense of a recalcitrant worker, and were the jury's damage awards excessive?

Holding

The court affirmed liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), finding the recalcitrant worker defense inapplicable and comparative negligence irrelevant. However, it reduced the award for future medical expenses and conditionally reduced future pain and suffering damages.

Rule

Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes strict liability on owners and contractors for elevation-related hazards if safety devices are inadequate, and comparative negligence is not a defense. The 'recalcitrant worker' defense is negated if the employer permits the work method.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed 2026-01-08. Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.