New York Labor Law 240 – The Scaffold Law Explained

New York Labor Law § 240(1) – the Scaffold Law – is the most powerful worker-protection statute in the country, and it exists only in New York. If you were injured in an elevation-related accident on a New York construction site – a fall from a scaffold, ladder, roof, or elevated platform, or being struck by a falling object – Labor Law 240 may impose absolute liability on the property owner and general contractor for your injuries.

Absolute liability is extraordinary. It means that regardless of who was at fault, regardless of whether your employer or co-worker made a mistake, and regardless of whether you were partially at fault – the owner and contractor are legally responsible. This is why defendant’s attorneys and insurance companies fight these cases so hard. And it is why having an attorney who knows the Scaffold Law inside and out is essential.

Linden Law represents construction workers injured under Labor Law 240 throughout New York City. No fee unless we win.

Call (212) 804-8440

The Statute – What It Actually Says

New York Labor Law § 240(1) provides, in relevant part:

“All contractors and owners and their agents… in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected for the performance of such labor, scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to a person so employed.”

Breaking this down:

Who is liable: Property owners and general contractors (and their agents). Not typically subcontractors directly, though they may be liable under other theories.
Covered activities: Erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning, and pointing – covering the vast majority of construction work.
Required equipment: Scaffolding, ladders, hoists, and “other devices” – broadly construed by courts to include any safety equipment intended to protect against elevation-related falls.
The standard: These devices must be “so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection.”

Absolute Liability – Plain English Explanation

Courts have interpreted § 240(1) as creating absolute liability for violations that proximately cause injury. In plain English:

The plaintiff’s contributory negligence is not a defense
The owner’s or contractor’s lack of knowledge of the dangerous condition is not a defense
The defendant does not get to argue that they exercised reasonable care
If the statute required proper protection, proper protection was not provided, and a worker was injured – liability follows automatically

This is the gravity-related risk doctrine. The legislature recognized that when workers are placed at elevation – on scaffolding, ladders, roofs, elevated platforms – they face a unique category of danger that is entirely dependent on the equipment others provide. The law places the risk of that equipment’s failure squarely on the owner and general contractor.

What Types of Accidents Are Covered

Falls from elevation – A worker who falls from a scaffold, ladder, roof, elevated platform, or through a floor opening because the protective device failed, was absent, or was inadequate has a § 240 claim. Courts have found § 240 liability for falls from relatively low elevations when proper safety equipment was not provided.

Falling objects – A worker struck by an object that fell because it was not properly secured or hoisted has a § 240 claim. The New York Court of Appeals has held that § 240(1) covers falling object cases when the object was required to be hoisted or secured for the undertaking and the failure to secure it presented the kind of elevation-related hazard the statute was designed to address.

Key Court of Appeals Decisions That Shape the Law

Zimmer v. Chemung County Performing Arts (1985) – Established the absolute liability standard and confirmed that a plaintiff’s own negligence is not a defense.

Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison (1991) – Defined the “special hazard” presented by elevation-related risks and confirmed the statute covers both falling workers and falling objects.

Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric (1993) – Distinguished between § 240(1) (elevation-related) and § 241(6) (general construction safety regulations), clarifying when each applies.

Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Associates (2001) – Addressed the falling object branch and the “required to be hoisted or secured” standard.

These decisions and hundreds of subsequent cases shape how § 240 claims are litigated in New York courts. Linden Law is fully current on the evolving case law.

Common Defenses and How We Defeat Them

The Recalcitrant Worker Defense

Defendants sometimes argue the worker was “recalcitrant” – that safety equipment was provided, the worker was specifically instructed to use it, and the worker deliberately refused. This is a narrow defense. It requires proof that:
1. Adequate safety equipment was actually available
2. The worker was specifically instructed to use it
3. The worker deliberately refused without a good reason

A worker who was not given the equipment, was not specifically instructed to use it, or found the available equipment inadequate for the task is not a recalcitrant worker. We defeat this defense by establishing what equipment was actually provided, whether instructions were actually given, and whether the equipment was adequate.

The Sole Proximate Cause Defense

Defendants may argue the worker’s own conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident – meaning no statutory violation contributed to the injury. Courts have significantly limited this defense. It applies only when: (a) a completely adequate safety device was available, (b) the worker was specifically instructed to use it, (c) the worker chose not to for no good reason, and (d) the worker’s refusal was the sole cause – not a contributing cause – of the accident. If the statutory violation contributed at all, the defense fails.

We defeat this by showing that the inadequacy or absence of safety equipment was at least a contributing proximate cause.

One-and-Two-Family Dwelling Exception

The only significant exception to § 240(1) liability is for owners of one- and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work. A homeowner who hires a contractor to renovate their home and does not supervise the work is exempt. But:

A general contractor at a one-or-two-family home is still fully liable
A homeowner who actively directed or controlled the work loses the exception
The exception does not apply to commercial property of any kind

Frequently Asked Questions

I fell off a ladder on a construction site. Does Labor Law 240 automatically apply?
Very likely yes, but not automatically – the analysis depends on the specific facts. Were you engaged in a covered activity? Was the owner or general contractor the responsible party? Was the ladder inadequate, improperly positioned, or not provided when it should have been? If these elements are present, § 240 applies. We evaluate the specific facts of your accident.

The owner says they didn’t know the ladder was defective. Does that matter?
No. Under § 240(1)’s absolute liability standard, the owner’s knowledge or lack of knowledge is not a defense. If the statute required proper protection and it was not provided, liability follows regardless of what the owner knew.

Can I sue my own employer under Labor Law 240?
Generally no – workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy against your direct employer for on-the-job injuries. But § 240 claims are brought against the property owner and general contractor, who are typically not your direct employer. This is one of the most valuable aspects of the Scaffold Law.

I was working on a one- or two-family house when I fell. Does § 240 apply?
The one- and two-family dwelling exception applies only to the owner who did not direct or control the work. A general contractor at a one-or-two-family home is still fully liable under § 240. An owner who did direct or control the work loses the exception.

What if I was injured by a falling object rather than a fall from height?
Labor Law 240(1) also covers workers struck by falling objects that should have been properly secured. The key question is whether the object required securing for purposes of the undertaking and whether the failure to secure it presented an elevation-related hazard. If a tool, beam, or load of materials fell and struck you, § 240 may apply.

Call Linden Law – NYC Labor Law 240 Attorneys

The Scaffold Law exists because construction workers deserve protection. When owners and contractors fail to provide it, Linden Law holds them to the absolute standard the law requires.

Call: (212) 804-8440

No fee unless we win. Free consultation. Jason Linden personally handles every case.

Linden Law LLC | 250 West 57th St., Suite 432, New York, NY 10017 | linden.law