construction laborer injuries
Laborers Build the Infrastructure New York Depends On
Buildings, roads, gas and water mains, tunnels, bridges, nearly every type of construction project across New York and Long Island.
All of the different settings laborers work in expose them to the full range of accidents that happen on construction sites.
Labor Law § 240, Labor Law § 241(6), and Labor Law § 200 give injured construction laborers rights that go well beyond workers’ compensation.
These rights apply regardless of which LiUNA local you belong to or what specific work you were doing when you were hurt.
Recent Results
$26,500,000
For an operating engineer seriously injured in a car wreck
$24,750,000
For a union laborer who suffered a double leg amputation
$9,500,000
for an elevator apprentice struck by the cab
We Make A Difficult Situation Easier
Talk to Our Team
Common Ways Laborers Get Injured
Tunnel work and shaft falls. Local 147 Sandhogs work underground on subway extensions, water tunnels, and utility tunnels. The hazards include falls down shafts, crush from tunnel boring equipment, flooding, and atmospheric hazards. Falls in shafts and tunnels proceed under § 240 the same way falls from scaffolds do — the gravity-related risk and the absence of adequate safety devices are what matters.
Trench cave-ins and excavation. Local 1298 and Local 1010 members doing excavation face trench cave-ins. A laborer was working in an unshored trench when the wall collapsed onto him. The court confirmed trench cave-ins proceed under § 240 because the harm flows from gravity applied to the earthen wall. Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-4 requires shoring on trenches deeper than five feet. (Rivas)
Struck-by vehicles on roadwork. Highway and bridge laborers — especially Local 1298 and Local 1010 members — face strikes from passing traffic and from construction equipment within the work zone. Cases against municipal defendants (state DOT, county DPW) have short Notice of Claim deadlines (90 days), so the investigation needs to start immediately.
Struck-by heavy equipment. Excavators, loaders, dump trucks, and pile-driving rigs strike laborers on the ground regularly. The operator often has limited sight lines. These cases proceed under § 241(6) through Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-9 (power-operated equipment) and under § 200 when the GC controlled equipment operation.
Demolition accidents. Wall collapses, falling debris, and structural failures during demolition produce catastrophic injuries. Falling-object cases proceed under § 240 when gravity and elevation create the hazard, regardless of how short the fall distance. Industrial Code 23-3 covers demolition under § 241(6). (Wilinski)
Mason tending injuries. Mason tenders carry heavy block, mix mortar, supply bricklayers on scaffolds, and work below where materials are being handled overhead. Struck-by falling block, crush injuries from material handling, and falls from scaffold access ladders are all common patterns.
Hazmat and asbestos exposure. Local 78 members and other LiUNA workers in abatement work face asbestos, lead, silica, and chemical exposure. Long-tail claims use the discovery rule (CPLR § 214-c) — the statute of limitations runs from disease discovery, not exposure.
Concrete and rebar work. Concrete laborers face crush injuries from forming and pumping operations, falls from elevated concrete work, struck-by rebar, and wet concrete burns from prolonged skin contact with high-alkalinity material.
Important Information
These are steps you should take:
See Your Own Doctor, ER, or CityMD
30 Days to Report an Injury
Do Not Give Any Statements
File Workers' Comp to Pay for Immediate Bills
The Industrial Code for Laborer Cases
Most Laborer injuries proceed under § 241(6). The hazards laborers face, struck-by, caught-in, vehicle strikes, chemical exposure are not “gravity-related” in the way § 240 requires.
The major exception is trench work: a laborer buried when an unshored trench wall collapsed proceeded under § 240 because gravity caused the wall to fall inward. (Rivas)
§ 241(6) requires identifying a specific Industrial Code violation. That is what separates a § 241(6) claim from a general negligence claim — and it is where case strategy matters most:
A laborer in a trench that was never shored or sloped cites 23-4 (excavation and trenching).
A laborer struck by a backhoe swinging without a spotter cites 23-9 (power-operated equipment).
A laborer hit by falling debris during tear-down cites 23-3 (demolition).
A laborer exposed to an unguarded floor opening or unlit corridor cites 23-1.7 (protection from general hazards).
The right provision depends on the facts. Identifying the strongest one is part of the case strategy — and it is something Schwartzapfel Holbrook evaluates on every construction case.
LiUNA members usually work for subcontractors. The third-party lawsuit targets the property owner and general contractor both face strict or near-strict liability under §§ 240 and 241(6). For § 200 claims, the question is whether the GC controlled the work methods or knew about the dangerous condition and failed to correct it.
The Two-Track Recovery for LiUNA Members
A serious construction laborer injury triggers two separate legal claims that run in parallel.
You cannot sue your employer in New York. So the recovery is against the general contractor, property owners, or responsible sub-contractors.
Major construction projects in New York carry significant insurance coverage. Owner-controlled insurance programs (OCIP) and contractor-controlled insurance programs (CCIP) wrap up many trades into a single coverage program with substantial limits, often $25 million layered or more. Identifying every responsible party (owner, GC, equipment manufacturer, vehicle operator, subcontractor) and every available insurance layer is part of the work the firm does on every construction laborer case.
This is how to recover what you would have earned over a working life had you not been injured. Future medical care like surgeries, injections, physical therapy, pain management, durable medical equipment. Pain and suffering — the physical and emotional consequences of the injury.
For a career-ending injury to a union construction laborer with strong pension contributions and supplemental benefits, the third-party recovery is where the lifetime cost is captured.
The workers’ compensation claim is filed against the carrier through your direct employer. Workers’ comp covers two-thirds of your average weekly wage, capped at the statutory maximum ($1,222.42 per week for accidents in the 2025-2026 benefit year). All necessary medical treatment is covered. An eventual Schedule Loss of Use award or Classification award is available at the end of treatment if permanency results.
LiUNA members in NYC have substantial construction wages, which produces strong AWW calculations, but the statutory cap limits the weekly comp benefit regardless.
The two tracks work together. Workers’ comp provides immediate medical coverage and wage replacement during the period of disability. The third-party lawsuit recovers the damages workers’ comp does not pay. The comp carrier acquires a lien on the third-party recovery under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29, and our team handles both in house to maximize your recovery.
We’ve represented members of ...
How Schwartzapfel Holbrook Handles Construction Laborer Accidents Cases
Our job is to make a difficult situation as easy as possible. Clients entrust us to secure their future, and that starts immediately.
We help members from nearly every NY LiUNA local on a daily basis.
We begin the investigation the moment we are retained. Evidence preservation is time-critical. Site photos, witness identification, equipment preservation where applicable, and OSHA records all need to be secured before the construction project moves on.
Every case the firm accepts is prepared as if it will go to trial. That level of investigation, record collection, legal analysis, and trial strategy has yielded consistent record results for over 45 years.
Frequently Asked Questions About Construction Laborer Injuries
A construction laborer injury case is a legal claim arising from injuries to a worker engaged in any phase of general construction labor — excavation, demolition, concrete work, roadwork, hazmat abatement, or general site labor. The claims typically involve workers’ compensation against the direct employer and a third-party lawsuit against the property owner, general contractor, equipment manufacturers, vehicle operators, and other responsible parties.
New York case law on construction laborer injuries is highly developed because LiUNA members work across the broadest range of construction hazards. Trench cave-ins, struck-by equipment, vehicle strikes on roadwork crews, demolition accidents, and hazmat exposure all appear regularly in published New York decisions.
Any worker performing general labor on a New York construction site — regardless of whether they hold the formal job title "laborer" — is generally covered by Labor Law §§ 240, 241(6), and 200 when the work qualifies as construction, demolition, excavation, or alteration under the statutes. LiUNA members are typically the largest organized workforce in this category, but the protections apply regardless of union membership.
The protections do not require any specific job title. They require that the worker was engaged in covered construction work for the property owner or general contractor at the time of the injury.
You can file a lawsuit if a party other than your direct employer is responsible for the injury. Property owners, general contractors, equipment manufacturers, vehicle operators, and other subcontractors can all be sued. Workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy against your direct employer, but it does not block the third-party lawsuit against everyone else.
On a typical New York construction project, the property owner and the general contractor are both potential defendants under Labor Law §§ 240, 241(6), and 200. The lawsuit and the workers’ compensation claim run together, not as alternatives.
Yes. You can file a workers’ compensation claim and a third-party lawsuit at the same time. They are separate claims with separate elements. The comp claim is against the carrier through your employer. The third-party lawsuit is against the responsible parties up the chain.
The workers’ compensation carrier acquires a lien on the third-party recovery under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 for the medical and indemnity benefits paid. The lien is negotiable and attorney-fee apportionment under § 29 typically reduces the carrier’s net recovery substantially.
The legal protections apply equally to members of every LiUNA local. The firm represents members of Local 1298 (Heavy & Highway), Local 1010 (Pavers and Road Builders), Local 79 (NYC Construction), Local 78 (Hazmat), and other LiUNA locals across New York and Long Island.
Local affiliation matters operationally — the work each local performs varies (heavy and highway, road building, NYC construction, hazardous abatement) and the typical hazards differ. The intake conversation includes identifying the local, the project, and the specific work being performed at the time of injury so the case strategy fits the facts.
Labor Law § 241(6) imposes non-delegable duties on property owners and general contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection to construction workers. Unlike § 240 (which applies only to gravity-related hazards), § 241(6) covers the broader range of construction site dangers — equipment hazards, vehicle traffic, demolition operations, excavation safety, and more.
Most LiUNA member injuries proceed under § 241(6) because the hazards involved — struck-by, caught-in, vehicle strikes, hazmat exposure — are typically not "gravity-related" in the strict § 240 sense. The statute requires identifying a specific provision of the New York Industrial Code (12 NYCRR Part 23) that was violated and that the violation contributed to the injury.
The Industrial Code provisions most relevant to LiUNA work are: 12 NYCRR 23-1.5 (General Responsibility), 23-1.7 (Protection from General Hazards), 23-3 (Demolition Operations), 23-4 (Excavation and Trenching), and 23-9 (Power-Operated Equipment).
The right provision depends on the specific facts of how the accident happened. A trench worker hurt in a cave-in cites 23-4. A laborer struck by an excavator cites 23-9. A demolition worker hit by falling debris cites 23-3. Identifying the strongest provision is part of the case strategy on every LiUNA matter.
Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-4 governs excavation and trenching operations on New York construction sites. The core requirements apply to any trench deeper than five feet: shoring, sloping, benching, or trench boxes must be in place to protect workers from cave-ins.
The code is precise on what counts as adequate protection. Sloping requires specific angles tied to soil type. Trench boxes must be sized and configured for the trench. Spoil piles must be kept back from the trench edge. Water in the trench requires additional precautions because saturated soil weakens trench walls quickly. Violations of 23-4 are well-documented OSHA events and support strong § 241(6) claims.
Both. The First Department’s 2023 decision in Rivas v. Seward Park Housing Corporation confirmed that trench cave-ins proceed under Labor Law § 240 because the harm flows from the application of the force of gravity to the earthen wall. The same facts also support a § 241(6) claim through Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-4 violations.
Filing under both statutes is standard practice. § 240 imposes absolute liability and produces summary judgment in clear cases. § 241(6) provides an additional cause of action on slightly different legal grounds.
Struck-by-equipment cases are common LiUNA injuries because laborers regularly work on the ground in close proximity to heavy equipment with limited operator visibility. These cases proceed under Labor Law § 241(6) when an Industrial Code violation contributed (typically 12 NYCRR 23-9 on power-operated equipment) and under Labor Law § 200 when the property owner or general contractor controlled how the equipment was operated.
The investigation focuses on operator training, signaling procedures, equipment condition, sight lines, and whether spotters or signalers were required by contract or industry practice.
Roadwork vehicle strikes are a major hazard for LiUNA members in Local 1298 (Heavy & Highway), Local 1010 (Pavers and Road Builders), and other locals involved in highway, bridge, and roadway construction. These cases often involve multiple defendants: the property owner (typically a state or municipal entity), the general contractor, the work zone setup contractor, and the driver of the striking vehicle.
The investigation focuses on work zone traffic control — barricades, cones, signage, flaggers, lighting — and whether the setup complied with the New York Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Cases against municipal defendants have short Notice of Claim deadlines (90 days).
Cases against municipal defendants — the City of New York, the State of New York, the Port Authority, the MTA — have shorter deadlines than ordinary cases.
A Notice of Claim must be filed within 90 days of the accident. The lawsuit must be filed within one year and 90 days. These deadlines are jurisdictional — missing them can be fatal to the claim. Cases against municipal defendants need to be investigated and filed promptly, not at the back end of the three-year statute that applies to private defendants.
Demolition cases involve specific hazards (wall collapses, falling debris, structural failures) and a specific Industrial Code framework. The most relevant provisions are 12 NYCRR 23-3 (demolition operations) and 23-3.3 (specific demolition by hand requirements).
The Wilinski line of New York cases since 2011 has expanded Labor Law § 240 to cover falling-object injuries during demolition where gravity was the operative cause. § 241(6) claims through 23-3 violations apply to broader demolition hazards including wall stability and debris management failures.
Yes, in many cases. New York’s discovery rule for latent diseases (CPLR § 214-c) means that the statute of limitations for diseases like mesothelioma and asbestosis runs from the date the disease is discovered, not from the date of the exposure. Workers who were exposed decades ago can still bring claims when the disease emerges.
The case investigation traces back through every site, employer, and product the worker was exposed to. Each defendant has separate insurance coverage and separate claim limitations. Local 78 (Hazmat) members face the broadest range of potential exposures.
The Labor Law protections apply to all construction laborers in New York regardless of union membership. LiUNA membership is not required to bring a § 240, § 241(6), or § 200 claim.
The same is true of workers’ compensation. Workers’ comp covers all employees of New York employers regardless of union status. The third-party lawsuit is available to any injured worker who meets the statutory requirements.
Yes, when defective equipment contributed to the injury. Product liability claims against equipment manufacturers are a separate cause of action. The plaintiff must establish that the product was defective in design, manufacture, or warning, and that the defect was a substantial factor in causing the injury.
Common equipment-failure cases involving LiUNA work include defective trench shoring equipment, defective excavator controls and warning systems, defective vehicle backup alarms, and defective protective equipment in hazmat work.
LiUNA members commonly work for subcontractors on multi-trade construction sites. This does not limit the recovery. The third-party lawsuit targets the property owner and the general contractor, both of whom face strict or near-strict liability under Labor Law § 240 and § 241(6) regardless of who directly employed the worker.
Workers’ compensation is filed against your direct employer (the subcontractor). The third-party lawsuit can name the owner, the GC, other subcontractors, equipment manufacturers, and any other responsible party.
The workers’ compensation carrier acquires a lien on the third-party recovery under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 for the medical and indemnity benefits it has paid. The lien must be satisfied or negotiated as part of the settlement.
The lien is negotiable. Attorney-fee and cost apportionment under § 29 typically reduces the carrier’s net recovery substantially. The firm handles the lien negotiation as part of the integrated case.
Construction laborer injury cases vary widely in value. The factors that drive recovery are the severity and permanency of the injury, the strength of the liability theory, the worker’s pre-accident earning capacity, the available insurance coverage, and the documentation of the medical record.
A career-ending trench cave-in producing traumatic brain injury or paraplegia in a strong-wage LiUNA member can produce a seven or eight-figure recovery. A soft-tissue injury that resolves with conservative treatment produces a substantially smaller recovery. Each factor compounds. No two cases are valued identically.
OCIP (Owner Controlled Insurance Program) and CCIP (Contractor Controlled Insurance Program) are wrap-up insurance programs used on major construction projects in New York. Instead of each trade carrying its own liability coverage, the owner or general contractor purchases a single program that covers all enrolled trades.
OCIP and CCIP programs commonly carry million or more in layered coverage. Identifying the OCIP or CCIP program covering your project — and confirming the available limits — is one of the first steps in evaluating recovery potential.
The interaction between LiUNA pension contributions, health and welfare contributions, and the disability period varies based on the specific local’s collective bargaining agreement and pension fund rules. Workers’ compensation benefits do not generally count as pension-credited hours, which can affect long-term pension vesting and benefit accrual.
The firm reviews the union benefits picture as part of the integrated case strategy.
A construction laborer killed on a New York job site leaves behind a family that has lost a husband, wife, parent, son, or daughter. The legal claims are filed by the estate and recover the pecuniary losses to the surviving family members under New York’s Estates, Powers and Trusts Law § 5-4.1.
The Labor Law claims that protect injured workers also apply to fatal cases. Property owners and general contractors can be liable under §§ 240, 241(6), and 200 for the worker’s death.
Three years from the date of the accident for a personal injury lawsuit against most defendants under CPLR § 214. Two years from the date of death for a wrongful death claim under EPTL § 5-4.1.
The statute of limitations is shorter for claims against municipal defendants — 90 days for the Notice of Claim and one year and 90 days for the lawsuit. The clock starts the day the accident happened.
30 days to give written notice of the injury to your employer under Workers’ Compensation Law § 18. Failure to report within 30 days can be a defense to the comp claim, though the Workers’ Compensation Board has discretion to excuse late notice.
Two years to file the formal C-3 employee claim under WCL § 28. The two-year clock is firmer than the 30-day notice clock. Late filing of the C-3 is a near-fatal defect to the claim.
Get medical attention. Report the injury to your employer in writing within 30 days. Preserve evidence: photos of the scene, names of witnesses, identification of equipment involved. Do not give a recorded statement to any insurance carrier without legal advice first.
Site preservation is particularly time-critical on construction sites. Equipment gets moved. Trenches get filled. Witnesses leave the project. The first 48 to 72 hours after a serious injury are when evidence preservation matters most.
Yes. New York law protects all construction workers regardless of immigration status. Workers’ compensation and Labor Law claims are available to undocumented workers on the same terms as documented workers. The Court of Appeals has held in multiple decisions that immigration status does not defeat either claim.
The firm handles cases for workers across the immigration spectrum and does not share immigration information with any party outside the case team. The intake conversation is confidential and attorney-client privileged.