Within days of a scaffold fall, an insurance adjuster has usually read the accident report and settled on a story: the worker should have tied off, used a different ladder, or waited for help.
Under New York's Scaffold Law, that story often does not matter, and a Labor Law 240 lawyer's first job is building the case on the facts that do. At The Perecman Firm, PLLC, scaffold and falling-load cases are the center of the practice, not a sideline.
Section 240(1) puts the duty to provide proper fall and hoisting protection on owners and general contractors, and once a violation is proven, the worker's own carelessness does not reduce the recovery.
If you were hurt in a fall or by a load that dropped, call (212) 977-7033 before the site, the equipment, and the witnesses scatter.
Table of contents
- What Does a Labor Law 240 Lawyer Do for an Injured Worker?
- What Section 240(1) Requires, and From Whom
- Is the Scaffold Law Really "Absolute Liability"?
- When Does Section 240(1) Apply?
- One Firm for the Lawsuit, the Comp Claim, and the Appeal
- How Long Do You Have to Bring a Scaffold Law Claim?
- How Does a Scaffold Law Claim Fit With Workers' Compensation?
- FAQs for a Labor Law 240 Lawyer
- Contact a New York Labor Law 240 Lawyer After a Scaffold Accident
What Does a Labor Law 240 Lawyer Do for an Injured Worker?
A Labor Law 240 lawyer proves that a covered owner or contractor failed to provide proper protection against a gravity-related hazard, and that this failure caused the injury. That sounds straightforward, but scaffold law cases are rarely won on the fact of a fall alone.
Insurance carriers have defended these claims for decades and know exactly what they want to see in an accident report.
Building the Proof From the First Week
Our work begins with the questions the case will turn on years later. We contact witnesses while their memories are fresh and ask about the specific equipment workers were given, the instructions they received, and what was missing.
We also send preservation demands for video, incident reports, sign-in data, and the equipment itself before a site changes or footage is overwritten.
Identifying Every Responsible Party
The defendants in a scaffold law case are usually the property owner and the general contractor, because injured workers generally cannot sue their own employers.
We run ownership searches and pull the Department of Buildings job file for the project, which often identifies the general contractor and the permits on record. That groundwork shapes who is named in the lawsuit.
What Section 240(1) Requires, and From Whom
Labor Law § 240(1) requires contractors, owners, and their agents to furnish safety devices such as scaffolding, hoists, ladders, slings, braces, and ropes that are "so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection" to workers. These requirements address the dangers of working on scaffolds, where inadequate safety equipment can lead to serious injuries.
The duty is nondelegable, which means an owner cannot escape it by hiring a contractor to handle safety.
To bring a successful claim, an injured worker generally has to establish these elements:
- The worker was employed in a covered activity: erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning, or pointing of a building or structure.
- The work exposed the worker to an elevation-related risk, such as a fall from height or an object falling or descending with significant force.
- The defendant is an owner, contractor, or statutory agent, not the worker's own employer.
- The required safety device was missing, inadequate, or failed.
- That violation was a proximate cause of the injury.
Each element can become a fight. A defendant may argue the work was routine maintenance rather than repair, or that the hazard was not the kind the statute targets. Those disputes are where knowledge of the case law matters most.
Who Is Exempt From the Scaffold Law?
The statute exempts owners of one- and two-family dwellings who contract for the work but do not direct or control it.
A homeowner who hires a roofer and stays out of the way is usually outside Section 240(1). A homeowner who supervises how the work is done, or who uses the property commercially, may not be.
Licensed engineers, architects, and landscape architects who do not direct or control the work are also exempt from Section 240(1) liability.
Is the Scaffold Law Really "Absolute Liability"?
Labor Law 240 is often described as imposing absolute liability, and in one important sense it does: once a worker proves a violation that caused the injury, the worker's own carelessness does not reduce the recovery.
New York's ordinary comparative fault rules, which cut damages by a plaintiff's share of fault, do not apply to a Section 240(1) violation. The New York Court of Appeals confirmed this approach in Blake v. Neighborhood Housing Services of New York City (2003).
The phrase can mislead, though. Absolute liability does not mean every fall wins, and it does not mean liability is automatic.
The worker still has to prove every element above, and a defendant can defeat the claim by showing there was no statutory violation or that the worker’s own conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident.
The Sole Proximate Cause Defense
A defendant avoids liability if it proves the worker's own conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident. If the statute was violated and that violation contributed to the injury, the worker's conduct cannot be the only cause.
The defense therefore tends to succeed only where proper devices were available and nothing the owner or contractor did or failed to do played a role.
The Recalcitrant Worker Defense
The recalcitrant worker defense applies where a worker deliberately refused to use adequate safety devices that were available and that the worker knew he or she was expected to use.
In Cahill v. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (2004), the Court of Appeals held that a worker who had been told to use a safety line, and chose not to, was the sole proximate cause of his own injuries, reasoning closely tied to this defense.
A general safety lecture, or devices stored somewhere off the job, is usually not enough.
The table below summarizes how these defenses compare with the arguments that do not work under Section 240(1):
| Defense argument | Does it defeat a 240(1) claim? | What the defendant must show |
|---|---|---|
| The worker was careless | No | Comparative fault does not reduce a 240(1) recovery once a violation is proven |
| Sole proximate cause | Yes, if proven | No statutory violation contributed; the worker's conduct alone caused the accident |
| Recalcitrant worker | Yes, if proven | Adequate devices were available, the worker knew to use them, and chose not to for no good reason |
| Routine maintenance, not repair | Yes, if proven | The work fell outside the statute's covered activities |
| Not an elevation-related risk | Yes, if proven | The hazard was not the type of gravity-related risk the devices guard against |
These defenses are fact-intensive, which is why the early investigation matters. A witness statement taken in the first weeks can decide whether a sole proximate cause argument survives a summary judgment motion.
When Does Section 240(1) Apply?
Section 240(1) applies to gravity-related accidents where the height differential, or the weight and force of a descending object, created a risk the listed safety devices are meant to prevent.
The Court of Appeals has said the question is whether the harm flows directly from the application of gravity to the worker or to an object.
The courts have read the statute to reach more than ladder and scaffold falls. Fact patterns that commonly support a claim include:
- A worker falls from a scaffold, ladder, roof edge, or unguarded floor opening.
- A load slips from a hoist, sling, or crane because it was improperly rigged or secured.
- A heavy object descends only a short distance but generates enormous force, as in Runner v. New York Stock Exchange (2009), where an 800-pound reel pulled a worker into a metal bar.
- A heavy object on the same level as the worker topples over, which Wilinski v. 334 East 92nd Housing Development Fund Corp. (2011) held is not automatically outside the statute.
Other accidents sit outside it. A trip over debris on the same floor, or an object that falls during work that was not a covered activity, usually needs a different theory, such as Labor Law 241(6) or common-law negligence.
When a fall does not fit Section 240(1), our team looks at every other statute that may apply before deciding how to plead the case.
One Firm for the Lawsuit, the Comp Claim, and the Appeal
Construction accident and Labor Law cases have been part of our practice since the firm's earliest years, and they remain the center of it today. Our work includes investigating the causes of accident on construction site to determine how the incident occurred and who may be responsible.
Our attorneys circulate and discuss new Labor Law decisions every week, so the arguments in your case reflect where the courts are now, not where they were a decade ago. A knowledgeable personal injury lawyer can use these developments to help build arguments that reflect current case law.
Injured workers often have more than one claim, and we handle them together:
- Workers' compensation: we work to get medical treatment and wage benefits moving early, because many clients cannot wait.
- The third-party Labor Law lawsuit: the claim against the owner and general contractor that can compensate for losses comp does not cover.
- Social Security Disability: for clients whose injuries keep them out of work long term.
- Appeals: our attorneys handle their own motions and appeals in-house rather than sending them to outside appellate firms.
Keeping these claims under one roof matters strategically. If a comp carrier pushes to cut off medical benefits while the lawsuit is still pending, a gap in treatment can later be used to argue the injury is not serious. Coordinating both claims helps protect against that.
That approach has helped our firm recover nearly a billion dollars for injured people over the years. No two cases resolve the same way, and earlier results are not a prediction for yours. If your case involves a fall or a dropped load, (212) 977-7033 reaches our team directly.
How Long Do You Have to Bring a Scaffold Law Claim?
There is no single deadline that fits every Labor Law 240 case. The general rule for personal injury lawsuits in New York is three years from the date of the injury under Civil Practice Law and Rules § 214, but several situations change the timeline.
Deadlines that can apply to a construction injury include:
- Claims against public entities: a lawsuit involving the City of New York, the School Construction Authority, or another public corporation usually requires a notice of claim within 90 days, followed by a shorter filing period.
- Fatal accidents: wrongful death claims follow their own deadline and are brought by the personal representative of the worker's estate.
- Workers' compensation: the comp claim has separate notice and filing requirements with the Workers' Compensation Board.
Tolling rules and other exceptions can extend or shorten these periods, so the safest course is to have the deadlines in your case reviewed as early as possible. Missing a 90-day notice requirement can end a claim against a public owner before it begins.
How Does a Scaffold Law Claim Fit With Workers' Compensation?
A scaffold law lawsuit and a workers' compensation claim run side by side; filing one does not waive the other. Workers' compensation pays medical bills and part of lost wages regardless of fault, but it does not pay for pain and suffering. For workers surviving a fall from scaffolding, understanding these two separate paths to compensation can be important.
The Labor Law 240 lawsuit against the owner and general contractor can cover the losses comp leaves out.
Why the Two Claims Need to Move Together
The comp carrier usually has a lien on part of any third-party recovery for benefits it has paid. Settlements on either side affect the other, and a comp settlement that closes medical benefits too early can weaken the injury claim.
Construction cases in New York courts commonly take several years to resolve, so these decisions need to be made with the full timeline in mind.
FAQs for a Labor Law 240 Lawyer
Can I sue my employer under the scaffold law?
Generally, no. Under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy against a New York employer that carries coverage. Labor Law 240 claims are brought against the owner, general contractor, or their agents.
In cases involving a "grave injury," such as an amputation or a permanent total disability from a brain injury, those defendants may bring the employer into the case themselves.
How long does a Labor Law 240 case take in New York?
Many New York construction accident cases take three to five years to resolve, and larger or more complex cases often take longer. Court backlogs, the number of defendants, and the extent of the injuries all affect the timeline for a construction accident claim in New York.
Strong early evidence can position a case for a summary judgment ruling on liability, which often moves it toward resolution.
Will my scaffold law case go to trial?
Most Labor Law 240 cases resolve through settlement or mediation rather than a jury verdict. Because liability under the statute is strong once a violation is proven, insurers often prefer to resolve these cases rather than risk trial. Trial readiness still matters, because a defendant's view of the risk at trial shapes what it is willing to offer.
Does an OSHA citation prove a Labor Law 240 violation?
No. A citation from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) can be useful evidence about conditions on the site, but it does not establish a Section 240(1) violation on its own.
The scaffold law asks whether proper protection against an elevation-related risk was furnished, and that question is decided under New York law, not federal workplace regulations.
Does Labor Law 240 apply outside New York City?
Yes. Section 240(1) is a New York State statute, so it applies to covered construction work anywhere in the state, including Long Island.
Where the lawsuit is filed depends on where the accident happened and where the defendants are located, which affects the court and the local procedures that apply.
Contact a New York Labor Law 240 Lawyer After a Scaffold Accident
Scaffolds come down, crews rotate to other jobs, and video gets recorded over, usually within weeks of an accident. The sooner our team can pin down who supplied the equipment and what was missing, the stronger a Section 240(1) claim tends to be. Our phones are answered around the clock at (212) 977-7033.