New York Labor Law § 241(6) is the statute that requires property owners, general contractors, and their agents to keep construction, excavation, and demolition sites reasonably safe, and it lets an injured worker sue those parties when a specific safety rule in the New York Industrial Code was broken and that violation contributed to the injury. The duty is non-delegable, so an owner or general contractor cannot escape liability by pointing at the subcontractor who was actually running the work.
What the Statute Requires
Section 241(6) directs that all areas where construction, excavation, or demolition work is happening must be constructed, shored, equipped, guarded, and operated to provide reasonable and adequate protection for everyone working there or lawfully present. It authorizes the Commissioner of Labor to write detailed safety rules — the Industrial Code — that put that broad mandate into practice, and it requires owners, contractors, and their agents to follow those rules.1New York State Senate. New York Labor Law 241 – Construction, Excavation and Demolition Work
There is one significant carve-out. Owners of one- and two-family homes who hire a contractor but do not direct or control the work are exempt from § 241(6) liability.1New York State Senate. New York Labor Law 241 – Construction, Excavation and Demolition Work A homeowner hiring a contractor to redo a kitchen is treated differently from a commercial developer running a job site.
Who Can Be Held Liable
The statute reaches three categories of defendants: property owners, general contractors, and their agents. Because the duty is non-delegable, none of them can avoid responsibility by arguing they hired a competent subcontractor or never set foot on the site. The law treats them as the parties best positioned to enforce safety on the job, and holds them accountable on that basis regardless of who was actually supervising the work when the accident happened.1New York State Senate. New York Labor Law 241 – Construction, Excavation and Demolition Work
A statutory agent is someone the owner or general contractor has delegated authority to supervise or control the work. A construction manager hired to run an entire project typically inherits the same non-delegable duty. Courts look at the scope of authority actually granted rather than the title on the contract. A party with the power to stop unsafe work and enforce safety compliance is the kind of entity the statute holds responsible.
Workers’ Compensation and the Third-Party Claim
Most injured construction workers collect workers’ compensation from their own employer. Those benefits cover medical bills and part of lost wages but bar the worker from suing that employer directly. Section 241(6) matters because it lets the worker sue a third party — the property owner or general contractor — for the full range of damages. A laborer employed by a subcontractor can collect workers’ compensation from the subcontractor and separately pursue a § 241(6) lawsuit against the owner or general contractor.
What Work Is Covered
Section 241(6) applies to construction, excavation, and demolition. The Industrial Code defines construction work broadly to include building, erecting, altering, repairing, maintaining, painting, and moving buildings and other structures. Demolition covers the planned dismantling or destruction of a structure, in whole or in part. Excavation means removing earth, rock, or other material to create trenches, foundations, or other openings.
Not every task performed on or around a building qualifies. Courts distinguish covered construction work from routine maintenance, which falls outside § 241(6). The distinction turns on factors like whether the work replaces something with an identical item or upgrades it, the scale and complexity of the job, the size of the structure involved, and whether the materials differ substantially from what was originally there. Routine maintenance means keeping equipment or a structure working in its current state on a predictable schedule. Scheduled work is not automatically maintenance, though. Stripping and repainting a bridge counts as construction even on a regular cycle, and power washing a building in preparation for painting has been held to fall within the statute because it is an integral part of the painting work.
The Industrial Code Specificity Requirement
This is where most § 241(6) claims are won or lost. The statute itself speaks in broad terms about reasonable and adequate protection. In Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co., the New York Court of Appeals held that a worker cannot rely on that broad language alone. The worker must identify a specific, concrete provision of the Industrial Code (12 NYCRR Part 23) that was violated. The court drew a sharp line between code provisions that mandate compliance with concrete specifications, like a required plank thickness or guardrail height, and those that merely restate general safety standards in broad descriptive terms. Only the former can support a § 241(6) claim.2New York State Courts. Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co
A regulation stating that a guardrail must be at least 42 inches high, or that a floor opening wider than 12 inches must be planked or covered, is the kind of concrete specification Ross requires. A rule that simply says work areas must be kept “safe” is too vague to serve as a predicate. Section 23-1.7, addressing falling hazards, tripping hazards, and overhead protection, is one example of a subsection specific enough to support liability.3Legal Information Institute. New York Codes, Rules and Regulations Title 12 Part 23 – Protection in Construction, Demolition and Excavation Operations The burden falls on the injured worker to identify the exact subsection violated and connect it to the accident. Citing a general provision when a specific one exists, or citing nothing at all, can get the claim dismissed before it reaches a jury.4New York State Courts. Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co
How Section 241(6) Compares to Sections 240(1) and 200
Most construction injury cases in New York involve three overlapping statutes, and knowing where § 241(6) sits between them matters.
Section 240(1), the Scaffold Law, imposes near-absolute liability on owners and contractors for gravity-related injuries: falls from heights, falling objects, scaffold collapses. If proper safety devices were not provided and an elevation-related hazard caused the injury, the worker’s own negligence is not a defense.
Section 200 codifies the common-law duty to provide a safe workplace. It is the least plaintiff-friendly of the three because you must prove the defendant either created the dangerous condition or had actual notice of it and did nothing. When the hazard arose from the methods a subcontractor chose, the owner or general contractor also usually must have exercised supervision or control over the work for liability to attach.5New York State Senate. New York Labor Law 200 – General Duty to Protect Health and Safety of Employees
Section 241(6) sits between them. Like § 240(1), it imposes a non-delegable duty that does not depend on whether the owner supervised daily operations. Unlike § 240(1), the worker’s comparative negligence can reduce the award. Unlike § 200, there is no need to show the defendant had notice of the hazard; the worker must show the defendant violated a specific Industrial Code rule. Experienced attorneys typically plead all three and let discovery sort out which claims survive.
Comparative Negligence Reduces the Award
A § 241(6) claim is subject to comparative negligence. If a jury finds the worker partially responsible — for ignoring a safety barrier, for example, or failing to use available protective equipment — damages are reduced by that percentage of fault. A finding of 30 percent fault means the worker collects 70 percent of total damages. In Rizzuto v. L.A. Wenger Contracting Co., the New York Court of Appeals confirmed that comparative negligence reduces the award but does not eliminate the claim. The defendant can argue the worker was partly to blame but cannot use that as a complete shield.
Proving the Violation Caused the Injury
Identifying a violated Industrial Code rule is necessary but not enough. The worker also has to show the violation was a substantial factor in causing the injury. A guardrail that was two inches shorter than the code required will not support a claim if the worker was hurt by falling debris coming from the opposite direction. Courts look at whether the injury was a foreseeable result of the safety failure, and a direct line from the code violation to the moment of the accident is what separates claims that survive summary judgment from those that do not.
Damages You Can Recover
A successful § 241(6) claim can yield compensation beyond what workers’ compensation provides. Recoverable damages typically include:
- Medical expenses, including hospital stays, surgeries, rehabilitation, and ongoing treatment.
- Lost wages, including future earning capacity when the injury causes long-term or permanent disability.
- Pain and suffering, covering physical pain and emotional distress caused by the accident.
Workers’ compensation covers a portion of medical bills and lost wages but pays nothing for pain and suffering. That gap is a primary reason injured workers pursue § 241(6) claims against owners and general contractors on top of collecting workers’ compensation.
Deadlines for Filing
Under New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules § 214(5), a personal injury lawsuit, including a § 241(6) claim, must be filed within three years of the injury.6New York State Senate. New York Civil Practice Law and Rules 214 – Actions to Be Commenced Within Three Years When the responsible party is a municipality — the City of New York, a public housing authority, or another government entity — the timeline is much shorter. A notice of claim must be served within 90 days of the accident, and suit must be filed within one year and 90 days. Missing either deadline typically forfeits the claim no matter how strong the underlying facts.