roofer injuries
Facing Fall Risks Every Day
Roofers are regularly working at heights, its part of the job description. The most important law that applies is Labor Law § 240.
Falls through skylights, falls off pitched roofs, falls off scaffold or ladder approaches to the work, and falls from edges all produce traumatic brain injuries, spinal cord injuries, and death.
Labor Law § 240, Labor Law § 241(6), and Labor Law § 200 give injured roofers rights that go well beyond workers’ compensation.
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
Free Consultation
No Obligations
How Roofers Get Hurt
Falls through skylights and roof openings. A roofer installing insulation and rubber roofing fell through a roof opening where a skylight was being installed. Thats a § 240 case. (Clark)
Another example: a 30-foot fall through a plexiglas skylight bubble on a school roof — another worker had fallen through one on the same project 12 days earlier. (Gandley)
Falls off pitched roofs. Steeply pitched roofs produce falls when traction fails, roof jacks shift, or fall protection is not provided. Strong § 240 cases.
Falls off edges of flat roofs. Edge falls during membrane installation, gravel work, and tear-off. OSHA 29 CFR 1926.502 requires warning lines, guardrails, or fall arrest.
Falls from ladders accessing roofs. Inadequate extension above the roof line, unstable footing, lack of tie-off. Robinson doctrine applies. (Robinson)
Hot tar burns and torch injuries. BUR and modified bitumen systems use molten asphalt above 400°F. Spills, splashes, kettle failures, torch ignition.
Tear-off and demolition hazards. Falls through rotted decking, struck-by debris. Industrial Code 23-3 governs demolition. Since 2011, struck-by during demolition are strong § 240 claims. (Wilinski)
Long-term occupational exposures. Asphalt fumes, asbestos on older systems, silica from tile/slate cutting. Discovery rule (CPLR § 214-c) applies.
Important Information
Understanding the hazards, the responsible parties, the applicable statutes, and the deadlines.
See Your Own Doctor, ER, or CityMD
30 Days to Report an Injury
Do Not Give Any Statements
File Worker' Comp to Cover Immediate Bills
The Fragile Surface and Roof Opening Framework for Roofers
Roofer cases under § 240 most commonly involve falls through unguarded openings: skylight cutouts, ventilation openings, sections of deck removed during tear-off, and falls through fragile surfaces like skylight bubbles, deteriorated decking, and glass roof panels.
The legal question in skylight and opening cases is whether the opening was adequately guarded or covered. When a roofer fell through a roof opening where a skylight was being installed, the absence of a cover or guardrail over the opening was the statutory violation. When another roofer fell 30 feet through a plexiglas skylight bubble on a school roof, the fact that a different worker had fallen through one on the same project 12 days earlier showed the owner and GC knew the condition existed and failed to correct it. Prior notice of the hazard strengthens the claim but is not required under § 240. The absence of the safety device is enough.
Fragile surface cases turn on a specific factual question: was the surface designed to bear a worker's weight? Skylight bubbles, glass roof panels, deteriorated decking, and rotted sheathing all qualify as surfaces that are not designed for foot traffic. OSHA 29 CFR 1926.501(b)(4) requires fall protection on surfaces with low structural strength. Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b) covers falling hazards through openings. The defense argument in these cases is that the roofer should have known the surface was fragile. Under § 240, that argument fails because comparative negligence is not a defense. The only available defense is sole proximate cause: that adequate safety devices were available and the roofer chose not to use them.
For tear-off and demolition work, the struck-by analysis applies when debris or materials fall on workers during removal. Since 2011, falling-object claims are not limited to objects being hoisted. The weight and elevation differential of the falling object establish the gravity-related risk. Rotted decking that gives way under a worker is also a § 240 case, because the decking functioned as the elevated work surface and its failure is the statutory violation.
For § 241(6) claims, the relevant Industrial Code provisions are 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b) (falling through openings), 23-1.16 (safety harnesses), 23-1.21 (ladders), and 23-3.3 (demolition by hand, which covers manual tear-off). Each provision must be specific enough to support a claim, and the facts must show the regulation was actually violated.
For § 200 claims, the legal question is whether the property owner or GC controlled the work or had notice of the dangerous condition. On re-roofing projects where the owner hired the contractor, the owner's knowledge of prior falls, prior complaints about skylights, or prior inspections showing deteriorated decking establishes notice. The GC's control over the tear-off sequence, the assignment of work areas, and the provision of fall protection equipment establishes means-and-methods liability.
The Two-Track Recovery for Roofers
A serious roofer 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, roofing contractor, skylight manufacturer, equipment manufacturer) and every available insurance layer is part of the work the firm does on every roofer 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 roofer 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.
Local 8 Roofers in NYC and other union roofers have substantial pre-accident earnings that produce strong AWW calculations, but the statutory cap limits the weekly comp benefit regardless.
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 Roofer Accidents Cases
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 Roofer Injuries
A roofer injury case is a legal claim arising from injuries to a worker engaged in roof installation, tear-off, repair, or related activities on a New York construction site.
Clark v. Fox Meadow Builders is the foundational skylight/roof opening case. Falls from pitched roofs, edge falls, and ladder access falls all produce strong § 240 claims.
Any worker performing roofing work on a New York construction site is generally covered by Labor Law §§ 240, 241(6), and 200. Roofers Local 8 members and other organized roofers are the typical workforce, but protections apply regardless of union membership.
The protections require covered construction work, not a specific title.
You can file a lawsuit if a party other than your direct employer is responsible. Property owners, general contractors, skylight manufacturers, roofing material manufacturers can all be sued.
The lawsuit and workers’ comp run together, not as alternatives.
Yes. They are separate claims. The comp carrier acquires a lien under WCL § 29. The lien is negotiable.
Attorney-fee apportionment typically reduces the carrier’s net recovery substantially.
Protections apply equally to all locals. The firm represents Roofers Local 8, IUPAT roofers, and other locals.
Local affiliation matters operationally because hazards differ across specializations (BUR, residential, slate/tile, single-ply).
The Scaffold Law imposes absolute liability for gravity-related injuries when safety equipment was not provided.
For roofers, § 240 covers falls through skylights, falls off pitched roofs, falls off edges, falls from ladders accessing roofs, and falls from any elevated surface.
Clark (3d Dept 1995) involved a roofer who fell through a roof opening where a skylight was being installed. Summary judgment was granted on § 240.
The decision confirmed that falls through unguarded roof openings produce strong § 240 cases. The opening was the exact hazard the statute addresses.
Skylight falls are recurring in NY roofer cases. Skylight bubbles cannot bear worker weight. Gandley v. Prestige Roofing (2d Dept 1989) involved a 30-foot fall through a plexiglas skylight.
Multiple potential defendants including property owner, GC, skylight manufacturer, and roofing contractor.
Falls off pitched roofs are strong § 240 cases. The elevation hazard is direct and the safety devices the statute requires should have been provided.
The investigation focuses on what fall protection was practicable and whether the GC enforced requirements.
Edge falls from flat roofs proceed under § 240 and § 241(6) when required protections (warning lines, guardrails, fall arrest) were absent or inadequate.
The investigation focuses on work sequence and what protection was practicable at the stage of work.
Ladder access falls proceed under § 240 when the ladder failed or was inadequate. The ladder must extend 3+ feet above the roof line.
The investigation focuses on ladder selection, extension, footing, tie-off, and transition safety.
BUR and modified bitumen systems use molten asphalt above 400°F. Cases proceed under § 241(6) and § 200.
Equipment failures (defective kettles, torches) support product liability claims against manufacturers.
Tear-off exposes roofers to falls through rotted decking, struck-by debris, and respiratory exposures. Industrial Code 23-3 governs demolition.
Wilinski expanded § 240 to struck-by injuries during demolition. § 241(6) claims through 23-3 cover broader hazards.
Asphalt fumes, asbestos on older systems, silica from cutting tile/slate all produce occupational diseases.
Discovery rule (CPLR § 214-c) means limitations run from disease discovery, not exposure date.
Anyone performing roof work (HVAC techs, solar installers, satellite techs, maintenance staff) has the same Labor Law protections when the work qualifies as covered construction.
Skylight and roof opening falls are not exclusive to the roofing trade.
§ 240 covers "repair" but not "routine maintenance." Work on construction/renovation projects is covered. Routine inspection or scheduled maintenance often is not.
The Prats four-factor test controls these cases.
Yes, when defective products contributed. Skylight cases frequently involve claims for inadequate load-capacity warnings or defective designs.
Hot tar equipment cases involve claims against kettle and torch manufacturers for defective controls.
Workers’ comp is the exclusive remedy against your direct employer. The property owner, GC, and other parties can be sued separately.
The lawsuit names parties at the top of the contractual chain.
Protections apply regardless of union membership. Local 8 or IUPAT membership is not required.
Many roofers work for non-union contractors and the protections apply equally.
The comp carrier acquires a lien under WCL § 29. It must be satisfied or negotiated at settlement.
The lien is negotiable. Attorney-fee apportionment typically reduces it substantially.
Cases vary widely. Roofers have among the highest fatal and catastrophic injury rates in construction.
A career-ending fall through a skylight producing TBI or paraplegia can produce a seven or eight-figure recovery.
The interaction varies by CBA and fund rules. Comp benefits generally don’t count as pension-credited hours.
The firm reviews union benefits as part of the integrated case strategy.
A roofer killed on the job leaves a family that can file under EPTL § 5-4.1. Labor Law claims also apply to fatal cases.
Roofing has one of the highest fatality rates in construction, and wrongful death cases are unfortunately common.
OCIP and CCIP are wrap-up programs on major projects. Commonly carry $25M or more layered.
Identifying the program and limits is one of the first steps in evaluating recovery potential.
Three years under CPLR § 214. Two years for wrongful death. 90 days for municipal Notice of Claim. 30 days to report under WCL § 18. Two years for C-3.
The clock starts the day it happened.
Get medical attention. Report in writing within 30 days. Preserve evidence: photos of the roof opening, skylight, edge, ladder, equipment, scene. Get witness names. Do not give recorded statements without legal advice.
Site preservation is time-critical. Roof work moves fast. The first 48-72 hours matter most.