Case Name: Jere A. Winkelman, Appellant, v. Alcan Aluminum Corporation et al., Respondents; Alcan Aluminum Corporation et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. J.P.W. Riggers & Erectors, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1998-12-31
Citations: 256 A.D.2d 1126
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jere A. Winkelman, Appellant, v Alcan Aluminum Corporation et al., Respondents. Alcan Aluminum Corporation et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs, v J.P.W. Riggers & Erectors, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 256
Pages: 1126–1126

Head Matter:
Jere A. Winkelman, Appellant, v Alcan Aluminum Corporation et al., Respondents. Alcan Aluminum Corporation et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs, v J.P.W. Riggers & Erectors, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
[685 NYS2d 167]

Opinion:
—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiff and new trial granted on Labor Law § 241 (6) claim only in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiff sustained severe burns over approximately one quarter of his body when the clothing he was wearing was ignited by sparks while he was welding steel from a lift approximately 60 feet above the ground at a construction site. Supreme Court granted the motion of defendants and third-party defendant, made at the close of plaintiffs proof, for judgment dismissing plaintiffs Labor Law § 200 and 241 (6) claims..On appeal, plaintiff, as limited by his brief, challenges only the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.
With respect to the section 241 (6) claim, the court concluded that 12 NYCRR 23-1.25 (d) and (e) (3) restate the general rule that a safe working environment must be provided and do not mandate compliance with concrete specifications to support a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim (see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 502-504). We agree that, insofar as it requires an owner or general contractor to provide "appropriate protective apparel" for welders, 12 NYCRR 23-1.25 (d) sets forth a general safety standard that is not a basis for relief under Labor Law § 241 (6) (see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., supra, at 502). We conclude, however, that 12 NYCRR 23-1.25 (e) (3), which requires that welders be provided with an approved fire extinguisher or fire pail filled with a fire extinguishing agent within their easy reach while welding in the vicinity of combustible materials, sets forth a concrete specification, the violation of which serves as a basis for liability under Labor Law § 241 (6). Because plaintiff raised factual issues regarding the applicability of 12 NYCRR 23-1.25 (e) (3) and whether the violation of that regulation was a proximate cause of his accident, the court erred in dismissing his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. Thus, we modify the judgment by denying in part the trial motion and reinstating the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, and we grant a new trial on that claim only. Because plaintiff is entitled to a new trial, we do not reach the alleged evidentiary errors at trial. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J.— Negligence.) Present — Green, J. P., Wisner, Hayes, Balio and Fallon, JJ.