New York Labor Law 241 – Construction Site Safety Violations
New York Labor Law § 241(6) is a critical but often misunderstood protection for construction workers injured on New York job sites. While its companion statute – Labor Law § 240(1) – imposes absolute liability for elevation-related injuries, § 241(6) works differently and covers a much broader range of accidents, including many that § 240 does not reach.
If you were injured on a New York construction site and a specific safety regulation was violated, § 241(6) may provide a path to recovery from the property owner and general contractor – regardless of whether your injury was elevation-related.
Linden Law represents construction workers injured under Labor Law § 241(6) claims throughout New York City. We know the Industrial Code, the relevant case law, and what it takes to build a winning case. No fee unless we win.
Call (212) 804-8440
How Labor Law 241(6) Works – A Plain English Explanation
New York Labor Law § 241(6) requires that all areas in which construction, excavation, or demolition work is performed shall be constructed, shored, equipped, guarded, arranged, operated and conducted as to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to persons employed therein.
By itself, this language establishes a general duty – not absolute liability. Courts have held that to sustain a § 241(6) claim, a plaintiff must:
- Identify a specific, applicable provision of the Industrial Code (12 NYCRR Part 23) that was violated
- Show that the violation was a proximate cause of the injury
This is the central distinction from § 240:
| Labor Law 240(1) | Labor Law 241(6) | |
|---|---|---|
| Liability standard | Absolute liability | Negligence per se – must prove code violation |
| Scope | Elevation-related only | All construction, excavation, demolition work |
| What you must prove | Violation + causation | Specific Industrial Code violation + causation |
| Plaintiff’s negligence | Not a defense (absolute) | Defense – comparative negligence applies |
The advantage of § 241(6) is its breadth: it covers ground-level accidents, equipment malfunctions, electrical hazards, caught-between injuries, chemical exposures, excavation collapses, and many other accident types that fall entirely outside § 240’s elevation focus.
The Industrial Code: 12 NYCRR Part 23
The New York Industrial Code contains hundreds of specific safety requirements for construction sites. The most commonly violated provisions we see in § 241(6) cases are:
§ 23-1.7(b) – Floor Openings
Requires that floor openings through which a person can fall be guarded or covered with covers capable of bearing the load. An unguarded or inadequately covered floor opening is a direct Industrial Code violation.
§ 23-1.7(d) – Slipping Hazards
Requires that passageways and work areas be kept free of slipping hazards, including ice, snow, water, and grease. A worker who slips on pooled water, oil, or other liquid on a construction site floor has a strong § 241(6) claim.
§ 23-1.7(e) – Tripping and Other Hazards
Requires that passageways be kept free of accumulations of dirt, debris, and scattered materials. A worker who trips over construction debris left in a walkway has a potential § 241(6) claim based on this provision.
§ 23-1.21 – Ladders
Detailed regulations covering ladder construction, load capacity, angle (minimum 4:1 ratio for extension ladders), securing requirements, and condition. A ladder that slips because it was not secured, was used at an improper angle, or was defective creates § 241(6) liability.
§ 23-1.8 – Personal Protective Equipment
Requires hard hats in areas where there is risk of head injury from falling objects, and eye protection in areas with dust, debris, or chemical hazards. Failure to provide required PPE creates § 241(6) liability when a worker suffers the type of injury the PPE was meant to prevent.
§ 23-2.1 – Maintenance and Housekeeping
Requires that construction areas be maintained in a safe, orderly condition and that materials not be placed or stored so as to obstruct or endanger workers. This broad provision applies to a wide range of site conditions.
§ 23-4.2 – Excavation and Trenches
Requires adequate shoring and sloping for excavations and trenches to prevent cave-ins. Workers injured in trench collapses or unshored excavations have strong § 241(6) claims under this provision.
Comparative Negligence Applies – Unlike § 240
This is the most important distinction between § 240 and § 241(6): comparative negligence is a defense under § 241(6).
Unlike the absolute liability standard of § 240, where the plaintiff’s own fault cannot reduce recovery, § 241(6) allows the defendant to argue that the worker contributed to the accident. If the jury finds the plaintiff 30% at fault, their recovery is reduced by 30%.
The existence of an Industrial Code violation still constitutes negligence per se – the defendant cannot argue their conduct was “reasonable” – but the plaintiff’s own conduct is relevant to the liability analysis.
This is why § 241(6) cases require especially careful preparation on the liability evidence, and why having all the evidence locked in early matters so much.
Who Is Liable Under Labor Law 241(6)
Like § 240, § 241(6) imposes liability on property owners and general contractors – not on the injured worker’s direct employer, who is shielded from direct suit by the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule. This means:
- The building owner is liable even if they did not supervise the work
- The general contractor is liable even if the specific work was done by a subcontractor
- The injured worker can bring a § 241(6) claim without suing their own employer
The one-and-two-family dwelling exception that applies to § 240(1) applies equally to § 241(6).
Building the § 241(6) Case
Winning a § 241(6) case requires:
- Identifying the applicable Industrial Code provision – the specific regulation must be identified, pleaded, and proven to apply to the work being done
- Proving the regulation was violated – with site photographs, OSHA inspection reports, expert opinion, witness testimony, and safety records
- Establishing causation – the violation must have been a proximate cause of the injury
- Minimizing comparative negligence – with evidence of the owner’s and GC’s control over the site condition
Linden Law builds these cases from the ground up, beginning with immediate site investigation before evidence is altered or removed.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between Labor Law 240 and Labor Law 241?
Labor Law § 240(1) covers elevation-related accidents with absolute liability – no comparative negligence. Labor Law § 241(6) covers a much broader range of construction accidents, including ground-level accidents, but requires proof of a specific Industrial Code violation and allows comparative negligence as a defense. We plead both when the facts support both.
I was not working at height when I was hurt. Can I still use § 241(6)?
Yes. This is one of § 241(6)’s key advantages. Ground-level accidents – slipping on liquids, tripping over debris, caught-between injuries, equipment accidents, and many others – are covered as long as a specific Industrial Code violation can be identified.
How do I find out which Industrial Code provision applies to my accident?
This is the legal analysis Linden Law performs. We review the specific circumstances of your accident, the work being done, and the applicable sections of 12 NYCRR Part 23 to identify every regulation that may have been violated. This analysis is part of our initial case evaluation.
Can I bring both a § 240 and a § 241(6) claim for the same accident?
Yes, and we routinely do. If your accident involves an elevation-related component, § 240 may apply with absolute liability. If it also involves a specific Industrial Code violation, § 241(6) provides an additional theory. We pursue every available legal theory.
What if my employer was the one who violated the Industrial Code?
§ 241(6) liability runs to the property owner and general contractor – who can be held liable for Industrial Code violations even if the immediate cause was a subcontractor’s or your employer’s conduct. Workers’ comp only bars a direct suit against your employer. The owner and GC remain fully exposed.
Call Linden Law – NYC Labor Law 241 Attorneys
Construction workers injured because of safety code violations deserve full accountability from the owners and general contractors who control the site. Linden Law knows the Industrial Code and knows how to win these cases.
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