Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
FREDERICK NEVILLE AND LUCY NEVILLE, PLAINTIFFS–RESPONDENTS, v. CHAUTAUQUA LAKE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, LPCIMINELLI, INC., DEFENDANTS–APPELLANTS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action alleging that defendants violated Labor Law § 241(6) insofar as they failed to comply with 12 NYCRR 23–1.7(h), requiring that protective equipment be provided to employees using corrosive substances, and regulation 23–1.8(c)(4), requiring that employees using corrosive substances shall be required to wear appropriate protective apparel. Supreme Court denied that part of the motion of defendants-appellants (defendants) seeking summary judgment dismissing the claim that they violated those regulations. Frederick Neville (plaintiff) was injured when his neck and face were splashed by hot tar while he was placing a 100–pound “keg” of asphalt into the “kettle” (see Lee v. Lewiston Constr. Corp., 23 AD3d 1002, 1003; cf. Flores v Infrastructure Repair Serv. LLC, 115 AD3d 543, 543–544). At the time he was injured, plaintiff was wearing a plastic face mask connected to a hard hat that covered his face to the chin, two long-sleeved cotton sweatshirts, two pairs of gloves, long pants, and work boots.
We agree with defendants that the court erred in determining that the affidavit of plaintiffs' expert was sufficient to raise an issue of fact to defeat the motion with respect to the above regulations. The expert stated in conclusory terms, without evidence of a deviation from industry standards (see Diaz v. Downtown Hosp., 99 N.Y.2d 542, 544), that the safety equipment and apparel were not appropriate because the face mask was not long enough to prevent hot tar from splashing underneath it and plaintiff was not provided with a fire-proof hood to protect his neck and head. We nevertheless conclude that plaintiffs raised an issue of fact sufficient to defeat the motion by submitting the deposition testimony of two coworkers (see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 561). One coworker explained that he had also worked for other companies and had seen longer face masks used as protection for the task in which plaintiff was engaged. The other coworker stated that he ordered safety equipment for plaintiff's employer and that he had ordered “hoodies” for employees to wear to cover the head and neck. It is undisputed that the face mask provided to plaintiff did not prevent the tar from splashing onto plaintiff's face under the mask and that plaintiff was not wearing any protective equipment or protective apparel to protect his neck.
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CA 13–01946
Decided: January 02, 2015
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)