New York Labor Law § 240(1), known as the Scaffold Law, makes property owners, contractors, and their agents strictly liable when a construction worker is hurt by a gravity-related hazard because adequate safety equipment was not provided. If you fell from a ladder, scaffold, or elevated surface, or were struck by an object that fell because it wasn’t properly secured, this statute gives you a direct civil claim with a liability standard that no other state matches. Your own carelessness does not reduce what you recover.
What the Statute Requires
Section 240(1) obligates contractors, owners, and their agents to furnish or erect safety equipment that actually protects workers from elevation-related hazards during construction-type work. The statute names specific devices: scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, and ropes. Each one must be “so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection.”1New York State Senate. New York Labor Law 240 – Scaffolding and Other Devices for Use of Employees
The phrase “proper protection” is where most of the fighting happens. A ladder that wobbles, a scaffold missing a guardrail, or a hoist without proper bracing can all violate the statute even though the equipment was present on site. Courts look at whether the device was functionally adequate for the task, not just whether someone ordered it delivered.
The duty is non-delegable. An owner cannot hire a general contractor and walk away from safety responsibility, and a general contractor cannot push the obligation down to a subcontractor. If safety equipment fails or was never provided, the owner and the contractor are both on the hook regardless of which company employed the injured worker.1New York State Senate. New York Labor Law 240 – Scaffolding and Other Devices for Use of Employees
Who the Law Protects
The statute covers any person employed in the covered activities. New York courts read “employed” broadly to include direct employees of the general contractor, employees of subcontractors, and workers for lower-tier subs. What matters is whether you were performing covered work when you were hurt, not whose paycheck you cashed. Immigration or residency status is irrelevant to the right to bring a claim.
What Work the Law Covers
Section 240(1) applies to a specific set of activities: erecting, demolishing, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning, and pointing a building or structure.1New York State Senate. New York Labor Law 240 – Scaffolding and Other Devices for Use of Employees “Altering” means work that makes a significant physical change to the configuration or composition of a building. Moving walls, replacing structural elements, or substantially changing a layout counts. Routine maintenance does not.
The line between repair and maintenance causes a lot of confusion. Swapping a broken component with the same type of part can be routine maintenance. If the job involves significant complexity, specialized equipment, or forms part of a larger construction project, courts are more likely to call it a covered repair. Changing a lightbulb is maintenance. Rewiring an entire floor is not. Courts focus on the scope and nature of the actual work, not what any contract called it.
The Elevation-Related Hazard Requirement
Not every construction-site injury triggers § 240(1). The statute reaches injuries caused by a gravity-related hazard involving a physically significant elevation differential. The Court of Appeals asks whether the injuries were “the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential.”2Justia Law. Runner v New York Stock Exchange Inc A worker who falls off a scaffold, ladder, or elevated platform clearly meets the standard. A worker who trips over debris on a flat floor does not, even on the twentieth story of a building going up.
Worker Falls
The most straightforward § 240(1) cases involve a worker falling from a height because a safety device was missing or failed. A ladder that slides out from under you, a scaffold that collapses, or a platform edge without a guardrail are the classic fact patterns. The elevation difference between you and the surface you land on has to be more than trivial. Stepping off a curb doesn’t qualify. Falling through an unprotected floor opening to the level below does.
Falling Objects
The statute also covers injuries from objects that fall onto a worker, but not every dropped tool or tumbling brick qualifies. In Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Associates, the Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff must show the object fell “while being hoisted or secured, because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute.”3Cornell Law. Narducci v Manhasset Bay Associates The object needs to have required securing at a height because of the nature of the work. A beam that falls because it was never properly braced qualifies. A hand tool that someone knocks off a table is a different analysis.
Runner v. New York Stock Exchange extended the framework to cases where a falling object doesn’t directly strike the worker, as long as the harm “flows directly from the application of the force of gravity to the object.”2Justia Law. Runner v New York Stock Exchange Inc The injured worker in that case was lowering a heavy load by rope when the load descended uncontrollably and hurt him. Gravity’s pull on the load caused the injury, which was enough.
What Strict Liability Actually Means for Your Case
When courts call § 240(1) liability “absolute,” they mean this: if the statute was violated and the violation caused the injury, the owner and contractor are liable. Full stop. The worker’s own carelessness does not cut the recovery. That feature is why the Scaffold Law carries weight that other personal injury statutes don’t.
The Court of Appeals confirmed in Blake v. Neighborhood Housing Services of New York City (2003) that comparative negligence is not a defense to a § 240(1) claim. If a worker was 30 percent at fault but the owner also violated the statute, the worker still collects the full amount of damages. In an ordinary personal injury case, that same worker’s recovery would be reduced by 30 percent.
This standard frequently lets injured workers win summary judgment on liability before trial. If you can show that you fell from an unsecured ladder that tipped, slid, or shifted beneath you during a covered activity, courts routinely grant judgment as a matter of law. The only remaining question for the jury is how much the case is worth.
Who Can Be Sued
Three categories of defendants face § 240(1) liability:
- Owners of the property, regardless of whether they were present or involved in day-to-day work. Ownership alone creates the statutory duty.
- Contractors, including the general contractor and any contractor responsible for the work being performed when the injury happened.
- Agents, meaning third parties who have been delegated authority to supervise and control the work. A construction manager coordinating the project, recommending safety programs, and acting as the owner’s representative on site is a statutory agent. Subcontractors who control the specific work that caused the injury can also qualify.
You can sue all three. They are jointly and severally liable, which means any one of them can be held responsible for the full damages. You don’t need to pinpoint whose specific failure caused the equipment problem; the duty belongs to everyone up the chain.1New York State Senate. New York Labor Law 240 – Scaffolding and Other Devices for Use of Employees
The Homeowner Exception
Owners of one- and two-family homes are exempt from § 240(1) liability, but only if they hire a contractor and do not direct or control how the work gets done.1New York State Senate. New York Labor Law 240 – Scaffolding and Other Devices for Use of Employees The exception vanishes the moment a homeowner starts telling workers which methods to use, picking specific equipment, or managing the daily sequence of tasks. At that point the homeowner has crossed into directing and controlling the work and becomes liable like any other owner.
Architects and Engineers
Licensed professional engineers, architects, and landscape architects whose role is limited to planning and design are also carved out. If they do not direct or control the physical work on site, they are not liable under § 240(1). This exception does not touch any liability they may have under common law or other statutes.1New York State Senate. New York Labor Law 240 – Scaffolding and Other Devices for Use of Employees
The Only Real Defense: Sole Proximate Cause
Because comparative negligence is off the table, the one viable path for defendants is proving the worker was the sole proximate cause of the injury. That is a high bar. Courts require defendants to establish all four of the following:
- Adequate safety devices were available on the job site at the time of the accident.
- The worker knew the devices were available and understood they were expected to use them.
- The worker chose not to use them for no good reason.
- The worker would not have been injured if they had made a different choice.
Every element has to be present. If the employer provided a harness but never told the worker to use it, the defense fails. If the available device was itself defective, the defense fails. If the worker had a plausible reason for the choice they made, such as the safety equipment not fitting the task, the defense fails again.
This framework is sometimes called the “recalcitrant worker” defense, though the label is a little misleading. Courts apply it when a worker deliberately ignores proper safety equipment that was readily available. A worker who misuses an adequate device, or who picks an inadequate device when a proper one was available, can also be found the sole proximate cause. The defendant carries the burden on every element, and courts scrutinize these claims carefully.
How § 240(1) Fits with §§ 200 and 241(6)
Injured construction workers typically bring claims under more than one section of the Labor Law at the same time. Each section does something different.
Section 200 is a general duty clause requiring that workplaces be “so constructed, equipped, arranged, operated and conducted as to provide reasonable and adequate protection” to workers.4New York State Senate. New York Labor Law Section 200 Unlike § 240(1), this section operates on a negligence standard. To win, a worker has to prove the owner or contractor knew about the dangerous condition or created it, and failed to take reasonable steps to fix it. The strict liability that makes § 240(1) so powerful is absent here.
Section 241(6) requires construction, excavation, and demolition areas to “provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety” to workers, and authorizes the Industrial Commissioner to adopt specific safety rules.5New York State Senate. New York Labor Law Section 241 To win a § 241(6) claim, a worker has to point to a specific Industrial Code provision the defendant violated. Where § 240(1) is confined to elevation-related hazards, § 241(6) reaches a wider range of construction-site dangers: collapsing trenches, bad lighting, unguarded machinery, as long as a specific code provision applies. The trade-off is that comparative negligence does cut recovery under § 241(6), unlike the absolute liability of § 240(1).
Most plaintiffs in serious construction injury cases plead all three sections. Section 240(1) is the strongest claim when the injury involves a fall or a falling object; the other sections serve as fallback theories when the elevation-related hazard element is contested.
Workers’ Compensation and the Lien on Your Recovery
A § 240(1) lawsuit is a third-party claim, separate from workers’ compensation. You can pursue both at once, and the smart move is to file the workers’ comp claim immediately to start receiving medical and disability benefits, then pursue the § 240(1) action for the damages workers’ comp doesn’t cover, especially pain and suffering.
There is a catch. Under New York Workers’ Compensation Law § 29, the comp carrier has a lien on whatever you recover in the third-party lawsuit. If the carrier paid $150,000 in medical bills and lost-wage benefits, it can recoup that amount from the § 240(1) settlement or verdict. The lien is reduced proportionally by the attorney fees and litigation costs you incurred to obtain the recovery. If your attorney took a one-third fee, the lien is reduced by one-third.
Damages You Can Recover
A successful § 240(1) claim entitles you to compensatory damages: past and future medical expenses, lost earnings, diminished earning capacity, and pain and suffering. In cases involving traumatic brain injuries, spinal cord damage, or amputations, these awards can be substantial. Punitive damages are generally not available under § 240(1) because the claim is statutory strict liability, not a tort requiring proof of egregious conduct.
The Three-Year Deadline
The statute of limitations for a § 240(1) personal injury claim is three years from the date of the accident under CPLR § 214(5).6New York State Senate. New York Civil Practice Law and Rules 214 – Actions to Be Commenced Within Three Years Missing the deadline almost always bars the claim entirely, so talk to an attorney well before the three-year window closes. Claims against the State of New York or a municipality may have shorter notice-of-claim requirements, sometimes as short as 90 days, that have to be satisfied before you can file suit.