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
HERE IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT (CVA) CASE, THE ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE OF PLAINTIFF BY A TEACHER WERE BASED ON HER INABILITY TO CONSENT UNDER THE PENAL LAW; THEREFORE THE SCHOOL COULD ONLY BE LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION UNTIL PLAINTIFF TURNED 17; ALTHOUGH THE ABUSE WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE OFF SCHOOL GROUNDS, THE TEACHER, DURING SCHOOL HOURS, ALLEGEDLY MADE PUBLIC COMMENTS ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S APPEARANCE AND MADE ARRANGEMENTS TO MEET HER AFTER SCHOOL; THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
INJURY NOT GRAVITY-RELATED, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.
ALTHOUGH THE TEN-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS NOT WRONGFUL, THE DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY THE INTEREST ACCRUED DURING THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT).
Because Prior Mortgage Foreclosure Action Had Been Abandoned Plaintiff Was Not Entitled to Dismissal of the Instant Action Pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1301(3) (Which Prohibits More than One Such Action at a Time)
DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE LEASE DID NOT OBLIGATE THE LANDLORD TO MAINTAIN THE AREA AND NO STATUTORY VIOLATION WAS ALLEGED (SECOND DEPT).
A NYC REGULATION REQUIRES FOR-HIRE VEHICLES TO BE WITHIN 12 INCHES OF THE CURB WHEN PICKING UP OR DISCHARGING PASSENGERS; THE DRIVER STOPPED TWO FEET FROM THE CURB AND PLAINTIFF FELL TRYING TO GET INTO THE VEHICLE; THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST THE UBER DRIVER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Jury Need Not Draw the Permissible Inference of Negligence Under Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur, Even Where Defendant Offers No Proof 
ASSUMPTION OF RISK DEFENSE DID NOT APPLY TO STUDENT-ATHLETE’S PARTICIPATION IN UNSUPERVISED “HORSEPLAY;” SCHOOL’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

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...