Practice point: As the essence of plaintiff's claim is that the safety equipment
provided to him was inadequate, and the defendant-general contractor did not dispute that
it provided the safety equipment plaintiff used, plaintiff may hold the defendant-general contractor liable under Labor Law § 200 for any negligence in its providing safety equipment shown to have contributed to his injury.
Student note: Plaintiff's Labor Law § 241(6) claim was dismissed. The complaint alleges violations of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(h) and 12
NYCRR 23-1.8(c), which require adequate protective equipment and
apparel for workers using or handling "corrosive substances and
chemicals." In support of their motion for summary judgment, defendants
provided expert evidence that these Industrial Code sections are
inapplicable here, as the particular substance that injured plaintiff is
not considered a corrosive substance or chemical, and plaintiff's
opposition to the motion failed to adequately rebut this evidence.
Case: Flores v. Infrastructure Repair Serv., LLC, NY Slip Op 01811 (1st Dept. 2014).
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Compulsory arbitration and the CPLR 78 standard.
