New York Labor Law 240: The Scaffold Law Explained

What the Scaffold Law (Labor Law 240) Actually Requires

Labor Law §240(1) does not make an owner or contractor liable for every injury on a job site. It is specific. The statute applies to a defined category of risk: the danger created by the force of gravity on a construction project.^[1]

Two kinds of accidents fall inside the statute:

• Falls from a height. A worker falling from a scaffold, a ladder, a roof, an elevated platform, an unguarded floor opening, or any other elevated work surface where a protective device should have prevented the fall.
• Falling objects. A worker on the ground or a lower level struck by an object that fell, or that required securing because of a height differential, when a hoisting or securing device should have held it.

The statute names the safety devices that owners and contractors must furnish and place properly: scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices that give a worker proper protection from the elevation risk. When one of those devices is missing, defective, or placed so that it cannot do its job, and a worker is hurt by the gravity-related hazard it was supposed to guard against, the statute is violated.

Absolute Liability, Tied to the Device Failure

Courts call §240(1) liability "absolute" or "strict." That label is precise, and it has a precise scope. Liability is absolute once two things are shown: the work exposed the worker to an elevation-related or gravity-related hazard, and the absence or inadequacy of a statutory safety device was a proximate cause of the injury.

It is not liability for any fall on a construction site. A worker who trips over a hose at ground level, or who slips on a wet floor with no elevation differential in play, is not covered by §240(1). The hazard has to be the kind the statute was written to address, and the harm has to flow from the failure to protect against that specific risk.

The Non-Delegable Duty

The duty under §240(1) is non-delegable. An owner or general contractor cannot escape it by hiring a subcontractor and pointing the finger downward. They cannot escape it by showing they were never on site, never controlled the work, or never knew about the dangerous condition. The Legislature placed the responsibility on the parties best positioned to insist on safe equipment, and it does not move. That is why the owner and the general contractor are the defendants on a Scaffold Law claim even when neither of them held the ladder.

 

 

Why Labor Law 240 Is So Powerful for Injured Workers

In an ordinary personal injury case, the injured person carries a heavy load. They have to prove the defendant owed a duty, breached it by failing to act reasonably, and caused the harm. Then the defense gets to argue the injured person was partly at fault and chip the recovery down. The Scaffold Law removes most of that fight.

Two features make §240(1) extraordinary:

• Comparative fault is not a defense. In a standard New York injury case, a worker found 30 percent responsible loses 30 percent of the award. Under §240(1), comparative negligence does not apply at all. A worker who climbed an unsecured ladder, or who was not perfectly careful in the moment, still recovers in full if the device failure was a proximate cause of the fall. The defense cannot reduce a valid Scaffold Law verdict by pointing to what the worker did.
• No ordinary negligence to prove. The worker does not have to show the owner or contractor was careless in the everyday sense, did something unreasonable, or had notice of a problem. The worker shows that the statutory protection was absent or inadequate and that this caused a gravity-related injury. The statute supplies the standard of conduct, and the failure to meet it is the violation.

The practical effect is large. Once a worker establishes that a covered elevation hazard existed and that an inadequate or missing safety device proximately caused the injury, the owner and general contractor are liable as a matter of law. Many Scaffold Law cases are won on summary judgment on the question of liability, leaving only the amount of damages for trial.

The protection is not a windfall, though, and it is not automatic. The worker still has to fit the case inside the statute. That is exactly where owners and contractors aim their defense.

The Limited Defenses Owners and Contractors Raise

The Scaffold Law is strict, but it is not unbeatable. Defense lawyers know the few openings the statute leaves, and they push on every one. These are the arguments an owner or contractor will run.

"The Worker Was the Sole Proximate Cause"

This is the central §240(1) defense. If the worker's own conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident, there is no statutory violation to recover on. The point is the word "sole." If an adequate safety device was available, the worker knew to use it and was expected to, chose for no good reason not to, and would not have been hurt had they used it, then the device was not the problem and the worker's choice was. A bare allegation that the worker was careless does not get there. The defense has to show the worker's conduct was the only cause, not merely one cause among others.

The Recalcitrant-Worker Doctrine

A close cousin of the sole-proximate-cause defense. A recalcitrant worker is one who refused to use a safety device that was readily available and adequate, in defiance of an instruction to use it. The owner or contractor has to prove the device was actually present, suitable for the job, and that the worker deliberately declined to use it. The absence of a device defeats this defense outright. A worker cannot be recalcitrant for failing to use protection that was never supplied.

"There Was No Elevation Hazard"

Because §240(1) reaches only gravity-related risks, the defense often argues the accident was not the kind the statute covers. They will characterize a fall as a routine slip rather than a fall from a height, or argue the height differential was too small to be a covered risk, or that an object did not fall far enough or require securing for statutory purposes. The dividing line between a fall protected by §240(1) and an ordinary trip-and-fall is heavily litigated, and the facts of the elevation and the device decide it.

"It Was Not a Covered Activity"

The statute protects work in the construction, demolition, repair, alteration, painting, cleaning, or pointing of a building or structure. The defense may argue the task at the moment of injury falls outside those enumerated activities, for example routine maintenance rather than a covered repair or alteration. Whether a particular task counts is a recurring battleground in Scaffold Law litigation.

Why Comparative Negligence Is Not on the List

Notice what is missing. An owner cannot defeat a §240(1) claim by arguing the worker was merely careless, distracted, or partly responsible. Comparative negligence reduces recovery in most New York injury cases, but not on a Scaffold Law claim. Defense counsel will often try to dress up an ordinary comparative-fault argument as a sole-proximate-cause defense, and a worker's attorney has to keep the two separate. Partial fault is not a defense. Only sole cause is.

Labor Law 241(6) and 200: The Other Two Claims

The Scaffold Law is the headline, but a New York construction injury case often rests on three statutes at once. The other two reach situations §240(1) does not, and they work differently.

Labor Law §241(6): Tied to the Industrial Code

Section §241(6) imposes a non-delegable duty on owners and contractors to keep construction, excavation, and demolition work safe, and it ties that duty to specific, concrete rules in the Industrial Code (12 NYCRR Part 23).^[2] A worker cannot use §241(6) by pointing to a general statement that the site should have been safe. The claim has to rest on a particular Industrial Code provision that sets a definite standard, such as rules governing tripping hazards, debris, slipping hazards, drainage, or the placement of protective barriers.

Section §241(6) is broader than §240(1) in the hazards it reaches, because it is not limited to elevation risks. The trade-off is the standard of fault. Unlike the Scaffold Law, comparative fault does apply to a §241(6) claim. A worker found partly responsible has the recovery reduced by that share. The duty is still non-delegable, so the owner and general contractor remain answerable even if a subcontractor caused the violation, but the worker's own conduct is back in play.

Labor Law §200: The Codified Common-Law Duty

Section §200 is the statute that puts the common-law duty to provide a safe workplace into the Labor Law. It is a negligence claim, not a strict-liability one. To win under §200, a worker generally has to show the owner or contractor either created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it, or had the authority to supervise and control the work that caused the injury.

Because §200 turns on notice and control, it is the hardest of the three to win and the easiest for an owner to defend by showing it had no hand in directing the work. It matters most where §240(1) does not fit (no elevation hazard) and no specific Industrial Code provision supports a §241(6) claim. In many cases, a worker pleads all three and lets the proof sort out which one carries the verdict.

How New York Claims Work With Workers' Comp

A New York construction worker hurt on the job almost always has a workers' compensation claim. Comp pays medical care and a portion of lost wages without any need to prove fault. The trade-off is the exclusive-remedy rule: in exchange for those no-fault benefits, the worker generally cannot sue their own employer for the injury.

Here is what makes New York different. The Scaffold Law and its companion statutes do not target the employer. They run against the property owner and the general contractor as third parties. So the bar on suing the employer leaves the Labor Law claim untouched. A worker can collect workers' compensation from the employer and, in the same matter, pursue a separate third-party claim against the owner and general contractor under §240(1), §241(6), and §200.

That second track matters because comp benefits are capped and partial. They do not pay for pain and suffering, they do not pay lost wages in full, and they do not address the cost of an injury that follows a worker for the rest of a career. A Labor Law claim against the owner and contractor can. The interplay does involve a workers' compensation lien, where the comp carrier may seek repayment out of the third-party recovery, which is one of the technical pieces a worker's attorney handles. The structure is covered in more depth in our guide to third-party claims that exist alongside a comp case.

The short version: in New York, getting workers' compensation does not close the door on a Scaffold Law case. For many injured construction workers, the two run together, and the third-party claim is where the meaningful recovery lives.

In New York, the Scaffold Law is the most powerful tool an injured construction worker has. We use it the way it was meant to be used: to hold owners and contractors strictly accountable for height safety.