Free Case Evaluation
FILL OUT THE FORM BELOW
TO REQUEST YOUR CASE REVIEW
What Labor Law 241(6) Requires and Why the Code Section Decides the Case
New York Labor Law 241(6) makes owners and contractors liable when a construction, excavation, or demolition area violates a specific safety rule in the state Industrial Code.
The claim reaches hazards that have nothing to do with falling from a height, which is where Labor Law 240 stops.
It comes with one hard requirement. You have to point to a rule in 12 NYCRR Part 23 that gives a concrete, measurable command.
Cite a rule that says "adequate" or "proper" and the claim is dismissed. Cite one that says two inches thick, or guarded by a substantial cover fastened in place, and it survives.
More 241(6) claims are lost on the wrong code citation than on the facts of the accident.
Below is how the specificity rule works, which Part 23 sections routinely carry a claim, and what the defense does to knock each one out.
- 241(6) covers non-height hazards that Labor Law 240 does not reach
- The duty is non-delegable: owners and GCs are liable without personal fault
- Comparative negligence IS a defense here, unlike a 240(1) claim
The Ross Rule: Concrete Specifications Versus General Safety Language
Labor Law 241(6) says construction, excavation, and demolition areas shall be so constructed, shored, equipped, guarded, arranged, operated, and conducted as to provide reasonable and adequate protection to the people working there, and it directs the Commissioner of Labor to write rules carrying that out.[1]
Standing alone that language is too general to support anything. In Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494 (1993), the Court of Appeals drew the line that still governs: a code provision that mandates compliance with concrete specifications creates the non-delegable duty, while a provision that merely restates a general safety standard in descriptive terms does not.[2]
The Industrial Code itself tells you which words are fatal. Section 23-1.4(a) identifies general descriptive terms including adequate, effective, equal, equivalent, firm, necessary, proper, safe, secure, substantial, sufficient, and suitable. A rule built on those words describes a goal. It does not command a measurable act.
"A rule that tells a contractor to be careful protects no one. A rule that tells him the plank has to be two inches thick is enforceable at nine in the morning and provable at trial."
The practical consequence is that two workers hurt in the same accident can have different outcomes depending on which sections their lawyers pleaded. A claim resting only on a general provision gets dismissed on summary judgment, usually years in, when the deadline to add anything has long passed.
When several sections are pleaded and some are held too general, the claim continues on the ones that survive. That is the argument for pleading broadly and early, then narrowing after the site inspection and the depositions tell you what actually failed.
What a 241(6) Claim Gives You That a Negligence Claim Does Not
The duty under 241(6) is non-delegable. An owner who hired a competent general contractor, never visited the site, and had no idea the hazard existed is still liable if a specific Industrial Code rule was violated and that violation caused the injury. No notice requirement. No proof of personal fault.
That is a different burden from a Labor Law 200 or common-law negligence claim, where you have to show the defendant created the condition, knew about it, or controlled the work. It is also why the same accident is usually pleaded under multiple theories.
Two limits are worth being honest about. First, a code violation establishes the duty and the breach, but it is not automatic liability the way Labor Law 240(1) is. The violation still has to be a proximate cause of your injury. Second, comparative negligence is a defense here. If a jury finds you 20 percent responsible, your award drops by 20 percent, which is not true on a Scaffold Law claim. The absolute-liability comparison is laid out on our page about the Labor Law 240 Scaffold Law.
Which 12 NYCRR Part 23 Sections Actually Carry a Claim
The sections below are the workhorses of 241(6) practice, and each contains the kind of concrete command Ross requires. Whether a given subsection applies to your accident is litigated case by case, so treat this as the starting map, not the answer.
| Industrial Code Section | What It Commands | Typical Accident |
|---|---|---|
| 23-1.7(a) Overhead hazards | Suitable overhead protection where workers pass under falling material, with planking at least two inches thick or equivalent | Struck by dropped tool, brick, or debris |
| 23-1.7(b)(1) Hazardous openings | Every hazardous opening a person may step or fall into must be guarded by a substantial cover fastened in place or a safety railing | Fall through a riser hole, shaft, or unguarded floor opening |
| 23-1.7(d) Slipping hazards | No employee may be permitted to use a floor, passageway, scaffold, or elevated surface in a slippery condition | Slip on ice, water, mud, or grease on a work surface |
| 23-1.7(e)(1) and (e)(2) | Passageways kept free of dirt, debris, and tripping obstructions; working areas free of debris, scattered tools and materials, and sharp projections | Trip over conduit, rebar, or stacked material |
| 23-1.15 Safety railings | Dimensional specifications for a compliant railing, including the required top rail, mid rail, and toeboard | Fall from an edge with no railing or a railing built wrong |
| 23-1.16 Safety belts, harnesses, lifelines | Attachment and free-fall requirements for personal fall arrest equipment actually provided | Harness issued but with nothing to tie off to |
| 23-1.21 Ladders and ladderways | Footing, securing, and condition requirements for ladders in specific subdivisions | Ladder kicks out, slips, or is used on an unstable base |
| 23-1.22 Runways, ramps, and platforms | Construction and load specifications for temporary runways and ramps | Collapse of a ramp or plank walkway |
| 23-2.1 Storage of material | Material and equipment stored so it does not obstruct passageways or fall | Stacked material topples onto a worker |
| 23-4 Excavation operations | Shoring, sloping, and protection requirements for trenches and excavations | Trench cave-in and burial |
| 23-9.2(a) Power equipment | Servicing and repair of any structural defect or unsafe condition upon discovery | Lift, hoist, or machine that failed after a known defect |
Some accidents pair naturally with a 240(1) claim as well. A fall through an unguarded hole is both a 23-1.7(b) violation and a gravity-related failure, and we cover the overlap on our page about a fall through a floor opening on a construction site. Falling material claims raise the same double question, addressed in our breakdown of being struck by a falling object.
Who Owes the Duty, and Who Gets Sued
Section 241 places the obligation on all contractors, owners, and their agents, with a carve-out for owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work.[3] Everyone else on the ownership and contracting chain is exposed.
In practice the defendants are the fee owner, the net lessee that controls the property, the general contractor, and any construction manager that took on the safety role. Subcontractors are reachable when they had authority over the area or the activity that produced the hazard. Sorting out which entity held which authority is often the difference between one policy and four, and it is covered in detail on our page about owner, general contractor, and construction manager liability.
The homeowner carve-out is narrower than owners assume. It is lost when the owner directs or controls the work, and it turns on residential use rather than on the absence of any commercial activity. We break the test down on our page about the one and two-family homeowner exemption.
How the Defense Attacks an Industrial Code Claim
Four arguments come up in nearly every 241(6) motion, and each has a documentary answer that has to exist before it is asked.
"The Section You Cited Is Too General"
The Ross motion. The answer is to have pleaded specific subdivisions rather than a whole section, and to have the accident facts line up with the exact command the rule gives. A bill of particulars that cites 23-1.7 as a block invites this. One that cites 23-1.7(b)(1)(i) and describes the unguarded opening does not.
"The Rule Does Not Apply to This Work"
Part 23 applies to construction, excavation, and demolition. Defendants argue the task was routine maintenance, cleaning, or something outside the covered categories. The answer lives in the contract documents, the permit, the scope of work, and the daily reports, which is why we demand those early rather than at the end of discovery.
"There Was No Violation"
The factual fight. It is won with photographs taken before the site changes, the preserved equipment, OSHA's inspection file if there was one, and the testimony of the trades who were there. An OSHA citation does not create a 241(6) claim by itself, a distinction we explain on our page comparing OSHA standards and the New York Industrial Code.
"The Worker Caused His Own Injury"
Comparative negligence lives in this claim, so the defense invests in it. Expect an argument that you ignored an available safety device or created the hazard yourself. It reduces a 241(6) award but does not eliminate it, and it does not touch a companion 240(1) claim at all. The narrower version of the argument is dissected on our page about the sole proximate cause and recalcitrant worker defenses.
We pick the Industrial Code sections after we have seen the job or the photographs, not before. Sections chosen from an accident report describe what somebody wrote down. Sections chosen from the evidence describe what actually failed.
What a 241(6) Case Is Worth and What It Recovers
A 241(6) claim recovers the same categories as any New York personal injury case, and New York does not cap compensatory damages. That includes past and future medical care, full lost earnings rather than the capped workers' compensation benefit, lost earning capacity, pain and suffering, and loss of consortium for a spouse.
Two variables move the number most. The first is permanence: a fusion, a traumatic brain injury, or a crush injury that ends a trade career carries a future-loss component that dwarfs the medical bills. The second is the comparative fault percentage, since this claim is reduced by it. Where a companion Scaffold Law claim exists, the strategy is usually to drive liability through the section that carries no fault reduction. Typical figures are on our page covering construction accident settlement amounts.
None of this displaces workers' compensation, which keeps paying medical and wage benefits while the case runs. How the two fit together, and what the comp carrier can take back, is on our page about Labor Law claims and workers' compensation.
