Today marks yet another Labor Law sec. 240(1) decision in which the New York Court of Appeals defines the contours of the sole proximate cause analysis.
In Robinson v. E. Med. Ctr. LP, the Court held that the injured plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries, where he used a six-foot ladder for work in which he knew he needed a taller ladder. The decision reflects that there were taller, eight-foot ladders at the worksite. The Court concluded: "Plaintiff's own negligent actions -- choosing to use a six-foot ladder that he knew was too short for the work to be accomplished and then standing on the ladder's top cap in order to reach the work were, as a matter of law, the sole proximate cause of his injuries."
This case fits nicely in the logical progression of the Court's following cases in the past few years: Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of New York City, Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., and Montgomery v. Federal Express Corp. (all cases cited in Robinson).
In light of Montgomery and now Robinson, it appears that the requirements of the recalcitrant defense (an instruction to use available protection) need not come into play where the facts display that the injured worker's lack of judgment in the face of proper protection readily available somewhere on the worksite.
Comments