Allowing an employee to operate equipment without proper safety equipment is not per se a viable Laidlow claim.

The plaintiff sustained an eye injury while working as a carpenter and using a pneumatic nail gun. The nail gun lacked the manufacturer's guard, and the plaintiff was not wearing safety goggles. The employer acknowledged of being aware of the OSHA requirement mandating the use of safety goggles while operating the gun. In affirming the dismissal of the action against the plaintiff's employer, the unanimous appellate panel concluded that there was insufficient evidence of a "substantial certainty" of injury and the mere fact that the shield was missing from the gun did not give rise to a claim.

Case Law Alerts - 2nd Quarter 2013