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.
Robert B. McLOUD, Appellant, v. STATE of New York, Respondent. (Claim No. 82760.)
Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (McNamara, J.), entered November 17, 1995, which granted the State's motion to dismiss the claim.
On January 15, 1991 claimant was working at Coxsackie Correctional Facility in Greene County, which is owned by the State. Claimant was employed by Beltrone Construction Company Inc. as an apprentice carpenter; he was engaged in attaching plywood forms to a concrete wall by use of hardened metal masonry nails supplied to him by Beltrone. Claimant's supervisor, a Beltrone employee, instructed claimant to use a hard-headed hammer to drive the two-inch nails through three-quarter-inch plywood into reinforced poured concrete. It is undisputed that claimant, while performing this task, was in possession of a pair of “typical industrial type machinery safety glass” goggles. According to claimant's own statements, he was wearing the goggles on the day of the accident; however, when they became dirty he removed them. He alleges that he continued to attach the plywood forms using the masonry nails without his goggles because specific time restraints had been placed on his completion of the task. Within minutes of removing his goggles, a masonry nail which he was hammering shattered and a fragment penetrated his right eye. As a result, claimant sustained a total loss of sight in that eye and presently wears a prosthesis. Claimant commenced this lawsuit against the State seeking to impose liability for violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6). After completion of discovery the State moved for summary judgment. The Court of Claims granted the State's motion and dismissed the claim. Claimant appeals.1
Claimant contends that the State violated Labor Law § 241(6) and 12 NYCRR 23-1.8(a) by allowing claimant to continue to work after he removed his safety goggles which had become covered with dirt. We disagree. Labor Law § 241(6) requires that the owner and contractor obey safety rules promulgated by the Commissioner of Labor and “imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners and contractors, irrespective of their control or supervision of the work site, to provide reasonable and adequate protection to those involved in construction, excavation or demolition work” (Rapp v. Zandri Constr. Corp., 165 A.D.2d 639, 643, 569 N.Y.S.2d 994). Notably, 12 NYCRR 23-1.8(a) requires that “[a]pproved eye protection equipment suitable for the hazard involved shall be provided for and shall be used by all persons while employed in * * * chipping, cutting or grinding any material from which particles may fly, or while engaged in any other operation which may endanger the eyes” (emphasis supplied). To sustain a claim under Labor Law § 241(6), a violation of a rule or regulation which sets forth a specific standard of conduct must be demonstrated (see, Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 501-502, 601 N.Y.S.2d 49, 618 N.E.2d 82; Bryant v. General Elec. Co., 221 A.D.2d 687, 689, 633 N.Y.S.2d 410; Smith v. Hovnanian Co., 218 A.D.2d 68, 71, 633 N.Y.S.2d 888). The record amply supports the Court of Claims' conclusion that claimant failed to demonstrate that the State violated the standard of conduct contained in 12 NYCRR 23-1.8(a). Claimant testified at his examination before trial that he understood the risks related to the use of hard-headed hammers with hardened metal nails, i.e., the danger of explosion. He further testified that on the day of the accident and immediately before the injury occurred he was wearing “typical industrial type machinery safety glass” with side plates and looped ear pieces. Claimant also testified that he removed the goggles to clean them and continued to hammer the masonry nails without any eye protection.
In our view, the record supports the conclusion that at the time of the accident claimant was in possession of and using approved eye protection and that the safety measures employed at the job site were reasonable and adequate under the circumstances (see, Larabee v. Triangle Steel, 86 A.D.2d 289, 292, 451 N.Y.S.2d 258). Significantly, it is undisputed that neither the State nor Beltrone were notified that claimant's goggles became dirty and, therefore, they never had an opportunity to instruct claimant to stop working until he could replace his goggles (see, McCague v. Walsh Constr., 225 A.D.2d 530, 531, 638 N.Y.S.2d 752, 754). Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that Beltrone or the State directed or even encouraged claimant to continue to work without first cleaning off his safety goggles (cf., Crawford v. Williams, 198 A.D.2d 48, 603 N.Y.S.2d 456, lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 751, 611 N.Y.S.2d 133, 633 N.E.2d 488).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
FOOTNOTES
1. Claimant has not pursued his appeal of that portion of the Court of Claims' decision dismissing his claim pursuant to Labor Law § 200.
SPAIN, Justice.
CARDONA, P.J., and MIKOLL, CREW and YESAWICH, JJ., concur.
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.
Decided: March 13, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
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)