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 while walking on an unsecured plank across a trench at a worksite, resulting in paraplegia. His employer testified that workers were permitted to use doubled planks, and an expert stated even doubled planks would be inadequate if unsecured. A jury awarded substantial damages, including for future pain and suffering and medical expenses.

Issue

Did the plaintiff's actions constitute a recalcitrant worker defense or allow for comparative negligence under Labor Law § 240(1)? Were the jury's awards for future pain and suffering and future medical expenses excessive?

Holding

The court held that the plaintiff was not a recalcitrant worker, and comparative negligence does not apply under Labor Law § 240(1), thus establishing liability. The court reduced the award for future medical expenses and ordered a new trial for future pain and suffering unless the plaintiff stipulated to a reduced amount.

Rule

Under Labor Law § 240(1), liability is established when insufficient safety devices cause an elevation-related injury, and comparative negligence is not a defense. Employer testimony can negate a recalcitrant worker defense, especially if safety devices provided are inadequate.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed 2026-01-07. Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.