The statute itself is short — about a paragraph. Stripped of legal language, it requires that:
All contractors and owners and their agents engaged in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected for the performance of such labor, scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to a person so employed.
Three things matter in that paragraph:
The phrase “absolute liability” is sometimes misunderstood. It does not mean the contractor is automatically liable for any injury on a construction site. It means:
The contractor cannot escape liability by saying the worker was careless, didn’t follow the safety briefing, didn’t ask for a harness, or made a mistake — as long as the worker’s conduct was not the sole proximate cause of the accident.
The “sole proximate cause” defense is narrow. It generally requires the defendant to prove (a) that adequate safety devices were available to the worker, (b) that the worker knew he was supposed to use them, (c) that the worker chose not to use them for no good reason, and (d) that this was the only thing that caused the accident. If the safety devices were missing, defective, or not properly explained, sole proximate cause is off the table.
Courts have refused to apply sole proximate cause where:
– The worker was given a defective safety device.
– The worker was given inadequate instruction.
– The worker was working under time pressure that effectively required skipping safety steps.
– The worker thought (reasonably) that an alternative method was acceptable.
§240 applies to specific construction activities — generally summarized as the “enumerated activities”:
“Routine maintenance” is generally not covered. The line between “altering” (covered) and “routine maintenance” (not covered) has been fought over thousands of times in New York courts.
Common §240-covered situations:
Common situations that are not §240:
The owner of the property at the time of the accident is liable. The owner’s liability under §240 is non-delegable.
The general contractor on the project is liable on the same non-delegable basis.
A “statutory agent” is a party that has been delegated specific authority over the work that caused the accident.
§240 plaintiffs do not have to prove:
Generally not a defense unless it was the sole cause of the accident.
A recalcitrant worker defense can succeed only if the defendant proves the worker was specifically instructed to use available, adequate safety devices and refused.
If a defendant can show the work was not one of the enumerated §240 activities, §240 doesn’t apply.
If the defendant can show the injury was not caused by a gravity-related hazard, §240 doesn’t apply.
§240 cases turn on facts a lawyer might not see — but a developer would. Jordan reads these documents the way an active developer reads them — fluently, in context, fast — because that is the work he does every day.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
In a typical negligence case, the defense will argue your case down with comparative-fault arguments — that you weren’t paying attention, that you took a shortcut, that you should have known better. Under §240, those arguments generally cannot defeat the claim. That is why §240 cases tend to settle higher and earlier than negligence-only construction cases.
The Scaffold Law is New York Labor Law §240(1). It places absolute liability on owners and general contractors for gravity-related injuries that occur because workers weren’t given proper safety equipment — scaffolds, ladders, hoists, harnesses, anchor points, or other protective devices. If you were injured by a fall from a height, or by a falling object that wasn’t properly secured, §240(1) likely applies. Comparative negligence is not a defense.
Yes. The Scaffold Law applies to the owner and general contractor, not your employer. You generally cannot sue your direct employer for a workplace injury because of New York’s Workers’ Compensation exclusivity rule (WCL §11). But you can pursue the property owner and the GC who controlled the site. Workers’ comp benefits run in parallel — you don’t have to choose.
Labor Law §241(6) covers injuries from violations of specific Industrial Code rules — things like inadequate lighting, unsafe walking surfaces, missing guardrails, improper hoisting. You have to identify a specific Industrial Code section the defendant violated. Comparative negligence applies. §240 is narrower (height + falling objects) but easier to prove. Many construction cases plead both.
§200 is the codification of general negligence on a worksite. It applies when an owner or general contractor exercised supervision or control over the work and was on notice of the dangerous condition that caused the injury. It’s broader than §240 and §241 but harder to win — you have to prove notice and control.
Yes. New York protects all injured workers regardless of immigration status. The Court of Appeals confirmed this in Balbuena v. IDR Realty LLC, 6 N.Y.3d 338 (2006). Your status cannot be used to limit your recovery for past or future lost wages, and it does not affect Workers’ Compensation eligibility. Your immigration information is not disclosed to immigration authorities in the course of your civil case.
Three years from the date of the accident under CPLR §214(5) for personal injury, or two years from the date of death for a wrongful death claim under EPTL §5-4.1. If the defendant is a public entity (NYCHA, the MTA, a school district), you must file a Notice of Claim within 90 days under General Municipal Law §50-e. Some §240 cases against public entities require the 90-day notice; talk to a lawyer before the deadline.
