Falls from heights. Falling objects. A scaffold that gave way. A ladder that wasn't tied off. Labor Law § 240 was written for exactly these cases.
If you got hurt because the owner or the general contractor failed to provide proper protection, the law makes them strictly liable.
You don't have to prove they were careless.
You don't have to prove you weren't careless.
This is the strongest worker protection law in the country.
We've used it to recover millions for trades people on construction sites across New York and Long Island.
The full text of Labor Law § 240 requires that owners, general contractors, and their agents provide safety devices to guard against gravity related accidents.
Devices like: scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other safety devices for workers.
The covered work applies to many different trades and phases of the job: new construction, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning, or pointing of a building or structure.
The statute's language is direct: these devices "shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection" to workers performing elevated work. When a required device is absent, defective, or inadequate, and a worker is injured as a result, the owner and general contractor bear absolute liability for the resulting injuries.
Courts interpret § 240 as creating a non-delegable duty. The property owner cannot transfer this responsibility to a subcontractor. The general contractor cannot shift it to the worker's direct employer. The duty runs with the property and the project, not with the employment relationship.
This makes § 240 fundamentally different from ordinary negligence claims, where fault is allocated among all parties.
Labor Law § 240 imposes a non-delegable duty on specific categories of defendants. Understanding who is liable under the statute is how we secure the money and benefits our clients are entitled to.
Strict Liability: Owners and contractors are absolutely liable for gravity-related injuries
Who Is Liable: Property owners and general contractors, not your employer
What It Covers: Falls, falling objects, scaffold collapse, ladder failures
Time to File: Three years from the accident, two years from a death
The statute lists specific categories of work: erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning, and pointing of a building or structure. Courts have interpreted each term through decades of case law, and the boundaries matter.
"Altering" requires a significant physical change to the configuration or composition of the building or structure. In Joblon v. Solow (91 N.Y.2d 457, 1998), the Court of Appeals held that the term includes work that changes the building's physical makeup. Routine maintenance, by contrast, is excluded. The line between repair and maintenance often determines whether § 240 applies.
The Court of Appeals addressed this boundary in Esposito v. NYC Industrial Development Agency (1 N.Y.3d 526, 2003), holding that routine maintenance falls outside § 240's coverage, and in Prats v. Port Authority (100 N.Y.2d 878, 2003), establishing a four-factor test to distinguish repair from maintenance. "Cleaning" was further defined in Soto v. J. Crew Inc. (21 N.Y.3d 562, 2013), which applied its own four-factor analysis.
If you were performing work that falls within any of these categories at a building or structure, and you were injured by a gravity-related hazard, § 240 applies. The determination is fact-specific, and the distinction between covered repair and excluded maintenance is one of the most litigated issues in New York construction law.
New York's highest court has shaped § 240 through a series of decisions that define its scope, its limits, and the narrow defenses available to property owners. Three decisions are foundational.
The Court of Appeals defined "altering" under § 240 as work requiring a significant physical change to the configuration or composition of a building or structure. This decision established the boundary between covered alterations and excluded routine activities, and remains the controlling framework for determining whether a particular task triggers § 240 protection.
Runner established that § 240 applies to any situation where the work creates an elevation-related risk, even when the worker does not physically fall. The case involved a worker injured while lowering a heavy load using a makeshift pulley system. The Court held that the statute protects against the effects of gravity on objects and workers alike, broadening § 240 beyond traditional fall-from-height scenarios.
Robinson defined the sole proximate cause defense, the only defense available to owners and contractors under § 240. The Court held that where adequate safety devices were available, the worker knew they were available, was expected to use them, and chose for no good reason not to, the worker's actions constitute the sole proximate cause of the accident. This is the defendant's only path to avoiding absolute liability.
Because § 240 imposes absolute liability, defendants cannot argue that the worker was comparatively negligent. This eliminates the most common defense in ordinary personal injury cases. What remains is narrow.
The primary defense is sole proximate cause. Under Robinson v. East Medical Center (6 N.Y.3d 550, 2006), a defendant can prevail if it proves that adequate safety devices were available and in good condition, the worker knew they were available, the worker was expected to use them, and the worker chose not to use them for no good reason. All four elements must be established. If the safety device was defective, unavailable, or inadequate, this defense fails.
The recalcitrant worker defense is a subset of sole proximate cause. It applies when a worker deliberately refuses to use available safety equipment despite instruction to do so. Courts apply this defense narrowly, and it rarely succeeds when the evidence shows the worker was following common site practice rather than deliberately refusing protection.
Defendants also argue that the activity falls outside the enumerated categories (that the work was maintenance, not repair) or that the injury was not gravity-related. These are threshold questions that determine whether § 240 applies at all. If the defendant succeeds on either ground, the claim proceeds under § 241(6) or § 200 instead, where the legal standard and available defenses differ substantially.
A successful § 240 claim entitles the injured worker to the full range of personal injury damages: past and future medical expenses, past and future lost earnings, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and any permanent disability or disfigurement.
These damages go far beyond what workers' compensation provides. Workers' compensation covers medical treatment and a fraction of lost wages, but it does not compensate for pain and suffering or full lost earnings.
A § 240 third-party case runs alongside the workers' comp claim. Under Workers' Compensation Law § 29, the worker may pursue both simultaneously. However, WCL § 11 gives the workers' compensation carrier a lien on any third-party recovery, which must be addressed in the settlement or verdict.
The absolute liability standard under § 240 means that once the worker establishes a gravity-related injury caused by the absence or inadequacy of a required safety device, liability is established. The trial then focuses entirely on damages. This shifts the litigation dynamic substantially in the worker's favor compared to claims under Labor Law § 241(6) or Labor Law § 200, where liability remains contested.
When someone calls Schwartzapfel Holbrook after a construction site fall or a falling-object injury, the first step is determining whether the accident triggers § 240. That analysis depends on what work was being performed, where the gravity-related hazard originated, and what safety devices were or were not in place.
We begin the investigation the moment we are retained by a client. Accident reports must be collected. Surveillance and photos of the site need to be secured. Witnesses identified and contacted.
We proactively move to preserve evidence because waiting even a week can mean losing it permanently.
We coordinate the § 240 claim alongside the workers' compensation case. These two proceedings run on parallel tracks with different rules, different deadlines, and different decision-makers. The comp claim provides immediate medical coverage and wage replacement while the third-party case develops. We manage both to ensure the worker's recovery is protected on every front.
We prepare every § 240 case as it will need to go to trial. That means retained experts on safety standards, bio-mechanical analysis of the clients medical limitations, and economic projections of future lost earnings. These types of cases often involve millions of dollars on the line for our clients. Having a well documented and legally relevant argument, supported by expert opinion is a requirement for the record outcomes we consistently win.
The Scaffold Law is the common name for New York Labor Law § 240(1), which imposes absolute liability on property owners and general contractors when a construction worker is injured by a gravity-related hazard and proper safety devices were not provided. Unlike ordinary negligence claims, the worker's own comparative fault is not a defense. The statute covers workers performing construction, demolition, repair, alteration, painting, cleaning, and pointing at buildings and structures across New York.
Labor Law § 240 covers gravity-related injuries sustained by workers performing enumerated activities at a building or structure. This includes falls from scaffolds, ladders, and elevated platforms, as well as injuries caused by falling objects such as tools, building materials, and equipment. The statute requires owners and contractors to provide proper scaffolding, hoists, ladders, slings, ropes, and other safety devices sufficient to protect workers at elevation.
Any worker performing covered work at a building or structure can bring a § 240 claim. This includes employees of subcontractors and independent contractors performing manual labor The statute protects the person doing the work regardless of employment classification. The key question is whether the worker was performing an enumerated activity when the gravity-related injury occurred.
Qualifying accidents include falls from scaffolds, ladders, roofs, beams, and other elevated surfaces where proper protection was absent or inadequate. They also include injuries from falling objects where the object was not properly secured against the force of gravity. The Court of Appeals has held that the statute applies to many scenarios of elevation-related risk, including situations where a worker is injured while raising or lowering heavy materials without proper hoisting equipment.
Absolute liability means the property owner and general contractor are liable for the worker's injuries as a matter of law once the worker establishes that a gravity-related hazard caused the injury and proper safety devices were not provided. The defendants cannot reduce or eliminate their liability by showing the worker was careless. Comparative negligence is not a defense. This is gives injured workers one of the strongest positions in New York construction law.
No. This is what makes § 240 unique. In an ordinary negligence case, your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault. Under § 240, your own negligence is irrelevant once you establish that the gravity-related hazard existed and proper safety devices were not provided. The only defense is sole proximate cause, which requires the defendant to prove you deliberately refused to use available and adequate safety equipment for no good reason.
Property owners and general contractors are liable under Labor Law § 240. The statute does not impose liability on the injured worker's direct employer. Workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy against the employer.
The owner of the property where the work was being performed is liable regardless of whether they had any role in the safety failure. So is the general contractor that controlled the construction project. Both are held to the same strict-liability standard, even if the actual safety failure was caused by a subcontractor or another party on the site.
Statutory agents of the owner or general contractor, parties delegated with authority to control and supervise the work, can also be liable under § 240. The analysis turns on whether the delegated party had the authority to enforce safety measures that would have prevented the accident.
The property owner is liable under § 240 in nearly every case where a covered worker is injured by a gravity-related hazard. The only meaningful exception is the homeowner exception, which protects owners of one- and two-family dwellings who do not direct or control the work.
For commercial buildings, multi-family residential buildings, and any property owned by a corporation, business entity, or government agency, the owner faces strict liability under § 240 regardless of whether they were involved in the day-to-day operations of the construction project.
The general contractor is strictly liable under § 240 when a worker on the project is injured by a gravity-related hazard that proper safety equipment would have prevented. The GC's liability does not depend on direct involvement in the safety failure.
A general contractor that subcontracts the work to other parties remains liable under § 240. The statute imposes a non-delegable duty. The GC cannot escape liability by pointing to the subcontractor that actually controlled the work. This is one of the most important features of the Scaffold Law.
The recalcitrant worker defense is a form of the sole proximate cause argument. It applies when a worker deliberately refuses to use safety equipment that was provided, available, and adequate. The defendant must show that the worker knew the equipment was available, was instructed to use it, and refused for no good reason. Courts apply this defense very narrowly. Following common site practice or using the equipment in the manner other workers used it typically defeats this defense.
Sole proximate cause is the only complete defense to a § 240 claim. The defendant must prove that adequate safety devices were available and in good condition, the worker knew they were available, the worker was expected to use them, and the worker chose for no good reason not to use them. If any element is missing, the defense fails. If the safety device was defective or inadequate, the defense is unavailable regardless of the worker's conduct.
Yes. A § 240 claim is a separate third-party lawsuit that runs alongside your workers' compensation case. Workers' comp covers your medical treatment and a portion of your lost wages through your employer's insurance. The § 240 claim is directed at the property owner and general contractor for the full range of damages including pain and suffering. You are entitled to pursue both simultaneously under Workers' Compensation Law § 29.
Repair work is covered by § 240. Routine maintenance is not. The Court of Appeals established a four-factor test in Prats v. Port Authority (100 N.Y.2d 878, 2003) to distinguish between the two: whether the work was occasioned by a specific event, whether the work involved a system or component replacement, whether the equipment used was specialized, and whether the work was performed by a specialized trade worker. This distinction is heavily litigated and often dispositive.
Yes. Section 240 expressly covers injuries caused by falling objects. In Wilinski v. 334 E. 92nd Housing Development Fund Corp. (18 N.Y.3d 1, 2011), the Court of Appeals confirmed that when an object falls on a worker due to the absence or inadequacy of a required safety device, the property owner and GC bear absolute liability. There are so many scenarios and fact specific circumstances that determine when §240 applies. But the general rule is that falling objects are an indicator that a §240 claim should be investigated and pursued.
It depends on the nature of the cleaning. The Court of Appeals held in Soto v. J. Crew Inc. (21 N.Y.3d 562, 2013) that cleaning is covered by § 240 when it involves a significant physical change, requires specialized equipment, is performed by a designated contractor rather than the building's regular maintenance staff, and involves a structure that is not easily accessible. Routine janitorial cleaning is not covered.
The statute of limitations for a § 240 claim is three years from the date of the accident under CPLR § 214. If the property is owned by a government entity, you must file a Notice of Claim within 90 days of the accident under General Municipal Law § 50-e before commencing suit. Missing either deadline can bar your claim entirely, regardless of how strong the liability case is.
Most homeowners are not liable under § 240. The statute carves out an exception for owners of one- and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work.
The homeowner exception applies only to owners of single-family and two-family residences. It does not apply to owners of apartment buildings, condominiums with three or more units, mixed-use buildings, or any commercial property. And it only applies when the homeowner stays hands-off. A homeowner who directs the work, supervises the contractor, or otherwise controls how the project is performed can lose the exception.
The homeowner exception is a statutory carve-out that protects owners of one- and two-family dwellings from § 240 liability when they contract for construction work but do not direct or control it. The exception exists because the legislature recognized that homeowners are typically not in the business of construction safety and should not be held to the same standard as commercial property owners.
The exception has two requirements. The property must be a one- or two-family dwelling. And the homeowner must not direct or control the work. A homeowner who tells the contractor what to do, supervises the job, or otherwise inserts themselves into how the work is performed can lose the exception and face strict liability like any other owner.
You can recover the full range of personal injury damages: past and future medical expenses, past and future lost wages and earning capacity, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and any permanent disability or disfigurement. In wrongful death cases, the estate can recover pecuniary losses to the surviving family. These damages substantially exceed what workers' compensation provides, which is limited to medical treatment and a statutory fraction of wages.
No. Section 240 imposes absolute liability. You do not need to prove the owner or contractor was negligent. You need to prove three things: you were performing an enumerated activity, you were injured by a gravity-related hazard, and proper safety devices were not provided or were inadequate. Once you establish those elements, liability is automatic. The trial becomes entirely about damages.
Section 240 imposes absolute liability for gravity-related hazards. Section 241(6) creates liability when an owner or contractor violates a specific provision of the Industrial Code (12 NYCRR Part 23). The key differences: under § 240, comparative negligence is not a defense; under § 241(6), it is. Section 240 is limited to gravity-related hazards; § 241(6) covers any hazard addressed by a specific Industrial Code provision. Many construction accident cases assert claims under both statutes.
Section 240 imposes absolute liability for gravity-related hazards without requiring proof of negligence. Section 200 codifies the common-law duty of owners and contractors to provide a safe workplace, but requires the injured worker to prove either that the defendant controlled the means and methods of the work or that the defendant had notice of a dangerous condition and failed to correct it. Section 200 allows comparative negligence as a defense. The liability standards are fundamentally different.
Yes, if you were performing manual labor as part of the covered work. The statute protects workers performing enumerated activities regardless of whether they are classified as employees or independent contractors. What matters is the nature of the work being performed, not the contractual relationship. A sole proprietor hired to perform renovation work at height has the same § 240 protections as a union carpenter employed by a subcontractor.
Yes. Demolition is one of the enumerated activities expressly listed in the statute. Workers performing demolition at a building or structure are protected by § 240 when injured by gravity-related hazards. This includes workers removing structural components, tearing down walls, and dismantling building systems, provided the injury results from an elevation-related risk and proper safety devices were not provided.
Renovation work is typically covered as "altering" or "repairing" under § 240. The Court of Appeals held in Joblon v. Solow that "altering" requires a significant physical change to the building. An employee's act of chiseling a hole through a wall and routing a conduit pipe was "altering" a building within state labor law because his work constituted a significant physical change to the configuration or composition of the building. The analysis depends on the specific tasks being performed rather than the project's overall characterization as a renovation.
No. Section 240 applies to work at any building or structure, including residential properties. However, the homeowner exemption protects owners of one- and two-family dwellings who do not direct or control the work. This means § 240 applies to all commercial buildings, all multi-family residential buildings with three or more units, and even single-family homes where the owner directed or controlled the construction work.
Altering under § 240 means making a significant physical change to the configuration or composition of a building or structure. The Court of Appeals defined this in Joblon v. Solow (91 N.Y.2d 457, 1998). The change must be more than cosmetic or minor. Installing new systems, reconfiguring layouts, adding structural elements, and significant interior demolition followed by reconstruction all qualify as altering.
Your employer's characterization of the injury does not determine § 240 coverage. The analysis is legal, not factual as described by the employer. What matters is whether you were performing an enumerated activity, whether the hazard was gravity-related, and whether adequate safety devices were absent or defective. Employers and their insurers routinely characterize accidents in ways that minimize statutory exposure. An independent legal evaluation of the facts is essential.
While not legally required, a § 240 case involves complex legal standards, expert testimony on safety device adequacy, coordination with a parallel workers' compensation claim, and negotiation with sophisticated insurance defense counsel. The absolute liability standard makes these cases strong on the merits, but the damages analysis, evidence preservation, and workers' comp lien resolution require experienced handling.
Most § 240 cases resolve within 18 to 36 months from filing, though complex cases or cases involving catastrophic injuries may take longer. The timeline depends on the severity of the injury (cases cannot be fully valued until maximum medical improvement is reached), the number of defendants, and whether liability is contested on threshold grounds such as whether the activity qualifies as covered work.
Yes. These are separate proceedings that run concurrently. The workers' compensation claim is filed with the Workers' Compensation Board against your employer's insurer. The § 240 claim is a civil lawsuit filed in court against the property owner and general contractor. The comp case provides immediate medical coverage and partial wage replacement. The § 240 case pursues full damages including pain and suffering. Both are standard in construction injury cases.
The gravity-related risk doctrine, established in Runner v. New York Stock Exchange (13 N.Y.3d 599, 2009), holds that § 240 applies whenever the work exposes the worker to an elevation-related risk of harm from the effects of gravity. This extends beyond simple falls from height to include injuries from improperly hoisted loads, falling materials, and situations where gravitational force on an inadequately secured object causes the injury.
Equipment installation is typically covered under § 240 when it constitutes "altering" the building or structure and involves an elevation-related risk. Installing HVAC systems, electrical systems, elevators, and other building components at height qualifies. The key question is whether the installation constitutes a significant physical change to the structure and whether the injury resulted from a gravity-related hazard during that work.
Yes. Union membership has no effect on § 240 rights. Union workers file § 240 claims routinely and successfully. The workers' compensation claim goes through the employer's insurer regardless of union status. The third-party § 240 claim against the owner and GC is a separate civil action. Collective bargaining agreements cannot waive statutory rights under the Labor Law.
Yes. Ladder accidents are among the most common § 240 claims. If you fell from a ladder because it was defective, improperly secured, inadequate for the task, or not provided at all, the property owner and general contractor bear absolute liability. This includes situations where the ladder shifted, collapsed, broke, or was the wrong type or size for the work being performed at elevation.
If the case goes to trial, the absolute liability standard means the jury typically hears only the damages portion of the case. Once the court determines that § 240 applies (often on summary judgment before trial), the trial focuses on the nature and extent of your injuries, the impact on your life and earning capacity, and the appropriate compensation. This is a significant advantage because the jury's attention is directed entirely to what you lost rather than who was at fault.