Two important features: (1) The Industrial Code provision must be specific — general provisions don’t count; plaintiff must point to a specific subsection mandating a specific safety measure. (2) Comparative fault applies — unlike §240’s near-absolute liability, §241(6) allows comparative-fault analysis. But the worker’s contributory negligence is not a complete bar to recovery. New York is a “pure comparative negligence” state.
We plead every applicable theory.
§241(6) imposes liability on the property owner, the general contractor, and statutory agents — parties delegated authority over the work that caused the injury.
Same damages categories as any New York personal injury case. Comparative fault reduces but does not eliminate recovery.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Jordan reads daily logs, OAC minutes, safety meeting notes, and OSHA citations against the Industrial Code requirements. He recognizes when a “weekly safety walk” is being done as paper compliance only. He can identify the specific provisions most likely to apply to a given accident pattern.
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.
§241(6) requires owners and general contractors to comply with specific safety rules in New York’s Industrial Code (12 NYCRR Part 23) on construction, excavation, and demolition. Unlike the Scaffold Law, you must point to a concrete, specific Code rule that was violated — which is why identifying the right rule is the heart of a §241(6) case.
§240 (the Scaffold Law) is about gravity/elevation risks and imposes absolute liability with no comparative-fault defense. §241(6) is broader — it covers many site hazards through the Industrial Code — but it allows a comparative-fault defense, so your own conduct can reduce (rarely eliminate) recovery.
Yes — that’s its strength. §241(6) reaches tripping hazards, debris, unsafe passageways, dangerous equipment, dust, and more, as long as a specific Industrial Code rule was violated. Many cases that don’t fit §240 fit here.
Under §241(6), comparative fault can reduce your recovery in proportion to your share, but it rarely bars the case. Strong Code violations by the owner or GC usually keep your recovery substantial.
Generally three years; 90 days for a notice of claim on a public project.
