An appeals court found that a worker who was injured from an electrical shock shouldn’t have been granted partial summary judgment on his New York Labor Law claim.
Because there was conflicting evidence on how the worker received the shock, the appeals court said partial summary judgment wasn’t appropriate.
Hector Ruiz was performing demolition work in an underground parking garage, using a jackhammer near a concrete column. Ruiz claimed he was injured from an electrical shock when the chisel on the jackhammer came into contact with an electrical conduit that was attached to the column.
The electricity in the underground parking lot was supposed to be turned off while the demolition work was being performed, and Ruiz brought a New York Labor Law claim against the property owner and other parties for a violation of the state’s Industrial Code.
However, there was evidence that suggested Ruiz may have received the shock from a loose wire that struck his leg. That conflicting evidence should have prevented summary judgment.
A lower court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Ruiz, but the appeals court reversed that decision because there were triable issues of fact regarding how Ruiz came to be injured.