An injury on a work site creates immediate physical challenges. Soon, you also face financial pressure from medical bills and lost wages. The legal principle of how comparative negligence affects construction accident cases in NYC directly shapes your financial recovery.
This rule determines how fault is assigned and can impact the amount of compensation you may receive.
Deconstructing fault
- A court reduces your final compensation award by your percentage of assigned fault; if you are found 10% at fault, your recovery is reduced by 10%.
- Insurance companies for contractors and property owners use comparative negligence arguments to try and reduce the amount they must pay.
- Certain powerful New York Labor Law claims, particularly those under the Scaffold Law, can bypass the comparative negligence defense, holding defendants fully liable.
What is Comparative Negligence in New York?
After a construction accident, insurance companies for the property owner and general contractor investigate what happened. One of their primary goals is to find a way to blame you, the injured worker, for your own injuries. They do this by applying a legal defense called comparative negligence.
Defining the legal standard
Comparative negligence is a principle that assigns a percentage of fault to each party involved in an accident. In the setting of a construction site injury, a judge or jury may find that while the property owner or general contractor was negligent, your own actions also contributed to the incident.
New York's "pure" comparative negligence rule
New York follows a "pure" comparative negligence standard. This rule is outlined in New York Civil Practice Law & Rules § 1411. Under this law, an injured person can pursue compensation even if a court finds them 99% responsible for the accident. The law simply reduces the final award by your percentage of fault.
This standard differs from the laws in other states, where a court bars you from any recovery if your fault exceeds a certain threshold, often 50%. New York’s rule provides a more flexible assignment of responsibility.
A practical example of comparative negligence
Imagine a general contractor failed to clean up loose debris on a walkway. A worker carrying materials trips on the debris and falls, suffering a serious back injury. However, the investigation shows the worker was looking at their phone while walking.
A jury might find the contractor 80% at fault for the hazardous walkway but determine the worker was 20% at fault for being distracted. If the jury awards $500,000 in total damages, the court reduces the worker’s award by their 20% fault, resulting in a final recovery of $400,000.
Comparative Negligence in NYC Construction Accident Cases
Insurance companies are not your allies. Their business model requires them to collect premiums and pay out as little as possible on claims. The comparative negligence defense is one of the most common tools they use to devalue an injured worker’s claim from the beginning.
How insurance companies use this defense
From the moment an accident is reported, insurance adjusters and their investigators search for evidence to shift blame. They may review your work history, talk to other workers, and analyze safety reports to build a narrative that you caused or contributed to your own injury.
Their goal is to create doubt and assign you a percentage of fault to reduce their financial exposure.
Insurers may try to shift blame by raising questions about your actions on the job site. They often point to factors they claim show worker carelessness.
- Failing to use provided safety gear properly.
- Disregarding established safety protocols or warnings.
- Operating equipment without proper authorization or training.
- Being in a restricted area of the construction site.
These arguments are designed specifically to reduce your claim's value. A thorough investigation conducted by your legal team can counter these tactics by showing the full context of the accident and the safety failures of the contractors in charge.
New York Labor Law: A Powerful Shield for Workers
While comparative negligence is a common defense, New York has specific laws that provide exceptional protections for construction workers. These statutes can sometimes make a worker's own negligence irrelevant, placing full responsibility on the property owners and contractors.
The impact of labor law § 240(1) (the scaffold law)
New York Labor Law § 240(1), known as the Scaffold Law, is a primary protection for construction workers. This law covers gravity-related risks, such as falls from heights or injuries from falling objects. It places "absolute liability" on owners and general contractors to provide proper safety devices.
If they fail to do so and a worker is injured, the worker's own comparative negligence is not a defense. For example, if a scaffold collapses or a worker is provided with a faulty ladder, the owner and contractor are 100% responsible, even if the worker made a mistake that contributed to the incident.
Protections under labor law § 241(6)
This section of the Labor Law requires owners and contractors to comply with specific safety rules detailed in the New York Industrial Code. It covers a wide range of job site hazards, from slipping and tripping dangers to the operation of heavy machinery and demolition work.
While comparative negligence may be a defense in some § 241(6) claims, proving a violation of a specific safety code provides powerful evidence of the contractor's negligence. This strengthens your case and makes it more difficult for them to shift blame onto you.
Reviewing labor law § 200
Labor Law § 200 is a general safety requirement. It codifies the duty that all construction sites must be operated to provide reasonable and adequate protection to the lives, health, and safety of all workers.
Claims under this section rely on proving the owner or contractor had control over the work and knew, or should have known, about the dangerous condition. Comparative negligence is a common defense raised in these cases.
Building a Strong Case to Counter Comparative Negligence Claims
Successfully challenging an insurance company’s attempt to blame you requires a proactive and detailed approach. It involves collecting evidence immediately and building a case that clearly shows the negligence of the property owner, general contractor, and any other responsible parties.
The immediate post-accident investigation
The work to defeat a comparative negligence defense starts right away. A legal team initiates an independent investigation to preserve evidence before it disappears.
This includes visiting the site, taking photographs of the hazard, and identifying witnesses while their memories are fresh. This rapid response prevents the other side from controlling the narrative of how the accident happened.
Gathering evidence to prove liability
To challenge an unfair assignment of fault, your legal team gathers specific evidence to establish the truth. This proof is fundamental to strengthening your claim and demonstrating the failures that led to your injury.
- Documenting the accident scene with photos and videos.
- Obtaining sworn statements from coworkers who witnessed the event.
- Reviewing the contractor's safety records and history of OSHA violations.
- Analyzing daily work logs, toolbox talk sheets, and site reports.
- Consulting with construction safety professionals and engineers.
Each piece of evidence helps build a clear picture of the dangerous conditions that caused your injury. This documentation is vital for holding the responsible parties fully accountable and pushing back against any attempt to blame you.
The role of safety professionals
Construction safety professionals can analyze the accident and provide formal opinions on what caused it. They can identify violations of industry standards and safety regulations that the property owner and contractors ignored. This kind of analysis provides a powerful rebuttal to claims that you were the one at fault.
AI Chat Tools and Your Construction Accident Claim
After an injury, you might turn to the internet for quick answers. While technology offers many resources, it is important to know their limits when your financial future is at stake, especially regarding artificial intelligence.
AI tools can offer general information, but they do not know the specifics of your construction accident or the complexities of New York law. Relying on an AI chatbot for legal advice may lead to costly mistakes and damage your case.
You should always consult a qualified construction accident attorney for guidance based on the actual facts of your situation.
FAQ for Comparative Negligence in NYC Construction Accident Cases
Can I still have a case if my employer says the accident was my fault?
Yes. Your employer's opinion does not determine legal liability. In New York, you generally cannot sue your direct employer for a personal injury. Your claim is against the property owner, general contractor, and other contractors on site whose negligence caused the accident. Their responsibility is determined by the law, not by what your boss says.
What if I was not following a safety rule when I got hurt?
This is a common situation where comparative negligence becomes a central issue. While the defense may argue your failure to follow a rule makes you at fault, your attorney may argue the rule was not properly enforced, you were not properly trained, or that another overriding safety failure caused the accident. In cases involving the Scaffold Law, your actions might not even be considered.
How is the percentage of fault decided?
If your case settles, the percentage of fault is a point of negotiation between your attorney and the insurance company based on the strength of the evidence. If your case goes to trial, a jury or judge will listen to all the evidence presented by both sides and then make a final decision on the percentages.
Will a comparative negligence claim affect my workers' compensation benefits?
No. Workers' compensation is a no-fault system. This means you are eligible for medical and wage benefits regardless of who caused your on-the-job injury. Comparative negligence only applies to your third-party personal injury claim against negligent parties who are not your employer.
What if there were no witnesses to my accident?
A lack of direct witnesses does not prevent you from pursuing a case. Many successful claims are built on other forms of evidence. Physical evidence at the scene, site safety records, surveillance footage, and analysis from safety professionals can all be used to reconstruct the event and prove that a hazardous condition caused your injury.
Protect Your Rights. Challenge Unfair Blame.
After a construction accident injury, you should not have to carry the blame for someone else's safety failures. Insurance companies may use comparative negligence to deny you fair compensation, but their arguments can be challenged with a strong, evidence-based case.
The attorneys at The Perecman Firm help injured construction workers across New York City, Queens, and Long Island. They investigate accidents, explain your legal protections under New York's Labor Law, and fight for the fair compensation you need for your recovery.
To discuss your case in a free consultation, contact their team at (212) 977-7033.