You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A PIECE OF WIRE STRUCK HIS EYE WHEN HE WAS USING...
,

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A PIECE OF WIRE STRUCK HIS EYE WHEN HE WAS USING A NAIL GUN; PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE WORK HE WAS DOING REQUIRED EYE PROTECTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RELEVANT INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate defendant was required to provided eye protection for the work plaintiff was engaged in at the time his eye was injured:

The plaintiff allegedly was injured while operating a nail gun to attach wood plates to a building roof when debris from a metal wire to which nails were secured, such that they could be loaded into the nail gun, flew off and hit his right eye. * * *

Labor Law § 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty on owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety for workers without regard to direction and control … . “In order to establish liability under Labor Law § 241(6), a plaintiff must ‘establish the violation of an Industrial Code provision which sets forth specific safety standards,’ and which ‘is applicable [to the facts] of the case'” … . Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.8(a) requires the furnishing of eye protection equipment to employees who, inter alia, are “engaged in any . . . operation which may endanger the eyes.”

Here, the plaintiff’s submissions failed to eliminate a triable issue of fact as to whether, at the time of his accident, the plaintiff was engaged in work that “may endanger the eyes” so as to require the use of eye protection pursuant to Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.8(a) … . Chuqui v Cong. Ahavas Tzookah V’Chesed, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 02166, Second Dept 4-24-24

Practice Point: Although plaintiff was struck in the eye by a piece of wire when using a nail gun, he did not eliminate questions of fact about whether the work he was doing triggered the eye-protection requirement in the Industrial Code. Therefore plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 241(6) cause of action.

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH FATHER FAILED TO APPEAR IN THE CUSTODY PROCEEDING, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING AND MADE FINDINGS OF FACT; CUSTODY ORDER VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT USED DRUGS TO EXCESS AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE OR IN THE PAST; THE 15 POINT ASSESSMENT UNDER RISK FACTOR 11 WAS THEREFORE ELIMINATED, REDUCING THE RISK LEVEL FROM THREE TO TWO (SECOND DEPT). ​
Question of Fact Re: Whether the “Continuous Representation Doctrine” Tolled the Three-Year Statute of Limitations in a Legal Malpractice Action
PLAINTIFF STUDENT WAS ASSAULTED BY ANOTHER STUDENT AND SUED THE SCHOOL UNDER A NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION THEORY; THE SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
IN AN EFFORT TO CONVINCE THE COURT TO GRANT THEIR REQUEST FOR A COMPETENCY HEARING BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S REJECTION OF A FAVORABLE PLEA OFFER, THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS REVEALED CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENDANT ABOUT THE STRENGTH OF THE EVIDENCE; ALTHOUGH THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS WERE ATTEMPTING TO HELP THE DEFENDANT, THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS BECAME WITNESSES AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, DEPRIVING HIM OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF-STUDENT’S FINGER WAS CAUGHT IN A DOOR SHUT BY ANOTHER STUDENT ACTING AS A LUNCH MONITOR; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE SCHOOL PROVIDED ADEQUATE SUPERVISION (SECOND DEPT).
Injury to Real Property, Waste, Trespass, Conversion and Private Nuisance Actions Based Upon Removal of Trees from Unrecorded Easement
Owner of Restaurant Not Liable for Parking-Lot Assault on Plaintiff by Another Patron

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE ALLEGED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS DEFENDANT... IF THE ORIGINAL PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE FAILS TO INCLUDE...