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
CRITERIA FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 306-b EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
BIOLOGICAL FATHER ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING PATERNITY.
THE CHILD SUPPORT PROVISIONS OF THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THE DIVORCE ACTION VIOLATED THE CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT AND MUST BE VACATED; THE VACATUR SHOULD HAVE EXTENDED BACK TO THE DATE OF THE STIPULATION, NOT MERELY TO THE DATE OF THE RELATED MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INVOLVED IN A COLLISION WHICH PUSHED HIS CAR INTO DEFENDANT’S CAR WHICH WAS PARKED ALONG THE CURB IN VIOLATION OF PARKING REGULATIONS; THE LOCATION OF DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
A Request for an Admission Which Goes to the Heart of the Litigation Is Improper—Defendant Should Have Been Allowed to Withdraw Its Admission that Its Employee Was Acting Within the Scope of His Employment When a Vehicle Accident Occurred
EXPERT WITNESSES CORROBORATED THE CHILD’S OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS IN THIS CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE CASE; THE PETITION, DISMISSED BY FAMILY COURT, REINSTATED AND A FINDING OF ABUSE MADE BY THE APPELLATE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SLIPPED ON ROSIN PAPER WHICH WAS PLACED ON THE STEPS AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE WORK, LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD ALLEGATIONS SUPPORTING “PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL” SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

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 © 2025 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...