Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America

Holding that "the inquiry involved in a ruling on a motion for summary judgment or for a directed verdict necessarily implicates the substantive evidentiary standard of proof that would apply at the trial on the merits" (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) )

Millison v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.

Holding pursuit of compensation benefits does not preclude common-law suit and "insurance carrier will be able to offset compensation benefits previously paid to the extent that the civil damage award would serve as a double recovery"

Laidlow v. Hariton

Holding that a company only utilizing a mandated safety device during OSHA inspections and having experienced reported close-calls of injuries similar to the plaintiff's pushed the injury beyond the norms of industrial life

Yun Tung Chow v. Reckitt & Colman, Inc.

Finding that a prima facie design defect case requires a showing “that the defendant ‘breached its duty to market safe products when it marketed a product designed so that the it was not reasonably safe and that the defective design was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's injury.’ ” Id. (quoting Voss, 59 N.Y.2d at 106–107, 463 N.Y.S.2d 398, 450 N.E.2d 204)

Van Dunk v. Reckson Assocs. Realty Corp.

Holding that summary judgment against the employee was appropriate because the "employer did not commit an intentional wrong causing employee's injuries"

Crippen v. Central Jersey Concrete Pipe

Holding that "genuine issue of material fact as to whether companies' conduct fell within the intentional wrong exception to the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act precluded summary judgment" of deceased employee's wrongful death suit against employer

Mull v. Zeta Consumer Products

Holding that "genuine issue of material fact as to whether employer's conduct. . . fell within the intentional wrong exception to the exclusive remedy provision of the [WCA], precluded summary judgment" of employee's claims against his employer

Tomeo v. Thomas Whitesell Const

Holding that summary judgment on employee's intentional harm claim against employer was precluded because employer's conduct "did not constitute an intentional wrong under the exception to the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act"

Mabee v. Borden, Inc.

Holding that whether alteration or removal of a safety device is an "intentional wrong" will be dependent on the facts of each case

Broderick v. Cauldwell-Wingate Co.

In Broderick v. Cauldwell-Wingate Co., 301 N.Y. 182, 93 N.E.2d 629 (1950), the New York Court of Appeals held that while a general contractor who has the power of general supervision may not be held liable for the negligent actions of subcontractors, this common law rule will yield "when the general contractor, by his act or conduct, assumes control and gives specific instructions which necessarily involve the safety of the subcontractors' men."

Section 500.11 - Alternative procedure for selected appeals

Section 1910.212 - General requirements for all machines

Providing that “machine guarding shall be provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards”

Section 1910.147 - The control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout)

Providing that, with some exceptions, machine-specific procedures must be created

Appendix C to Subpart I of Part 1910 - Personal Fall Protection Systems Non-Mandatory Guidelines