New York Labor Law §§ 240, 241(6) and 200 for Construction Injuries

Labor Law §§ 240, 241(6) and 200: the New York construction regime

Practitioner note

Authority: Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), 241(6); 12 NYCRR 23 (Industrial Code); Vehicle and Traffic Law n/a. Related: Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11, 29.

New York protects construction workers more strongly than any neighbouring state, and the mechanism is the Labor Law rather than ordinary negligence. For a seriously injured construction worker this is usually the difference between a workers’-compensation claim and a recovery that reflects the loss.

Labor Law § 240(1) — the Scaffold Law — imposes absolute, non-delegable liability on owners and general contractors for injuries caused by the effects of gravity: a worker falling from a height, or an object falling from a height and striking a worker. "Absolute" is meant literally. Once a § 240(1) violation is established as a proximate cause, the plaintiff’s own negligence is not a defence, and neither is the fact that the owner never set foot on the site or controlled the work.

That last point is what makes the statute so powerful: the duty is non-delegable, so it attaches to the owner and general contractor by status, not by conduct. An owner who hired a competent contractor and stayed away is still liable.

The limits are real, though. The injury must flow from an elevation-related risk that the statute’s enumerated safety devices are designed to guard against. A worker who trips on a flat floor is outside § 240(1), however badly hurt. And where the worker’s own conduct is the sole proximate cause — the classic "recalcitrant worker" who refused an available, adequate device — the claim fails entirely rather than being reduced.

§ 241(6) — the Industrial Code route

Section 241(6) imposes a non-delegable duty to comply with the specific safety provisions of the Industrial Code (12 NYCRR 23) during construction, excavation and demolition. The pleading must cite a concrete, positive specification rather than a general safety exhortation; a cited regulation that merely restates the common-law duty of reasonable care will not support the claim. Unlike § 240(1), comparative fault does reduce a § 241(6) recovery.

§ 200 — the codified common-law duty

Section 200 codifies the duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace. It requires what § 240(1) does not: either notice of the dangerous condition, or authority to supervise and control the work that produced it. It is the fallback where the gravity element is missing.

The worker cannot sue their own employer — but can sue almost everyone else

Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 bars a direct action against the employer. The Labor Law claim therefore runs against the property owner, the general contractor and other contractors on site. On a typical New York job that is several solvent, separately insured defendants, which is why these cases are worth pursuing even where the employer is judgment-proof.

Why this drives forum choice

New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Massachusetts have no analogue to § 240(1). A construction injury with New York contacts is therefore worth substantially more in a New York forum, which makes choice of law and venue worth briefing early rather than conceding.