Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth

In Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 NY3d 35 [2004] the plaintiff was injured while greasing rods at an elevation, but did not use safety lines, as he had been instructed to do several weeks earlier. Rather, he used another device that was not designed for his task. The Court of Appeals acknowledged that plaintiff fit the definition of "recalcitrant" in that he was given specific instructions to use a safety line while climbing, which he disregarded, but explained that "the controlling question . . . was not whether the plaintiff was 'recalcitrant,' but whether a jury could have found that his own conduct . . . was the sole proximate cause of his accident" (Cahill, 4 NY3d at 39-40). The Court in Cahill, reversing the Appellate Division, found issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff was the sole cause of his injuries: "Here, a jury could have found that plaintiff had adequate safety devices available; that he knew both that they were available and that he was expected to use them; that he chose for no good reason not to do so; and that had he not made that choice he would not have been injured. Those factual findings would lead to the conclusion that defendant has no liability under Labor Law 240 (1), and therefore summary judgment should not have been granted in plaintiff's favor" (id. at 40).The Court of Appeals analyzed the sole proximate cause defense to Labor Law 240 (1). There, the plaintiff was injured while greasing rods at an elevation, but did not use safety lines, as he had been instructed to do several weeks earlier (Cahill, 4 NY3d at 37). The Cahill Court found issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff was 100% responsible for his accident, or the sole proximate cause of his injuries (id. at 40). As noted by the Court, "a jury could have found that plaintiff had adequate safety devices available; that he knew both that they were available and that he was expected to use them; that he chose for no good reason not to do so; and that had he made that choice he would not have been injured. Those factual findings would lead to the conclusion that defendant has no liability under Labor Law 240 (1), and therefore summary judgment should not have been granted in plaintiff's favor" (id.). The Court of Appeals held that there was sufficient evidence that formed the basis of the jury's finding that "plaintiff had adequate safety devices available; that he knew both that they were available and that he was expected to use them; that for no good reason he chose not to do so; and that if he had not made that choice he would not have been injured", and therefore, as a recalcitrant worker, plaintiff was not entitled to recover under Labor Law 240(1).