BUCKLEY v. TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEL AUTHORITY

6568, 401759/09.

91 A.D.3d 508 (2012)

937 N.Y.S.2d 25

2012 NY Slip Op 251

EUGENE BUCKLEY, Respondent, v. TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEL AUTHORITY, Appellant.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.

Decided January 17, 2012.


Plaintiff was employed as an iron worker on the Triborough Bridge. He was injured when, while retrieving an electrical cord from a basket lift, the loose end of his lanyard became caught and suddenly released. The lanyard snapped back causing the hook end to hit his eye. That portion of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.8 (a), which requires such protective eyewear under circumstances where an employee is engaged in any "operation which may endanger the eyes," is specific enough to support a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim (Galawanji v 40 Sutton Place Condominium, 262 A.D.2d 55 [1999], lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 756 [1999]). Whether the activity in which plaintiff was engaged presented a foreseeable risk of eye injury, requiring the furnishing of eye protection "suitable for the hazard involved," pursuant to Industrial Code § 23-1.8 (a), is a question for the jury (see Fresco v 157 E. 72nd St. Condominium, 2 A.D.3d 326, 328 [2003], lv dismissed 3 N.Y.3d 630 [2004]).

We have examined defendant's other contentions, and find them unavailing.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases