Free Case Evaluation
FILL OUT THE FORM BELOW
TO REQUEST YOUR CASE REVIEW
When Does a Falling Object Become a Scaffold Law Case?
Labor Law 240(1) has a falling-object branch, and it is narrower than the falling-worker branch. Not every object that comes down from height triggers it.
The test New York courts apply asks whether the object was being hoisted, or required securing for the purposes of the work being done, at the time it fell.
A load that slips out of a choker is inside the statute. A piece of the building that broke loose on its own generally is not.
That distinction decides whether you have an absolute liability claim or a claim you have to prove fault on.
It also means the wrong analysis early can cost a worker the strongest claim New York gives him.
Here is where the line sits, and what claim applies when a falling object lands on the wrong side of it.
- The object must have been hoisted or required securing for the work
- When 240(1) does not fit, Industrial Code 23-1.7(a) often does
- Free Legal Evaluation - You Pay Nothing Unless We Win
Narducci and the Object That Was Never Being Secured
In Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Associates, 96 N.Y.2d 259 (2001), a worker removing steel window frames from the third floor of a fire-damaged warehouse was cut severely when a large piece of glass fell from an adjacent window frame and struck his arm.[1]
The Court of Appeals held Labor Law 240(1) did not apply. The glass was not material being hoisted, and it was not a load that required securing for the purposes of the undertaking at the time it fell. It was a piece of a deteriorated building that came loose.
That is the line. The statute is about the failure of a hoisting or securing device that should have been protecting against a gravity risk created by the work. It is not a general rule that anything falling on a construction worker produces absolute liability.
"The question is never how far the object fell. It is whether somebody was supposed to be holding it, and with what."
The framework the statute sits inside, including the absolute liability and the loss of comparative negligence as a defense, is covered on our page about the Labor Law 240 Scaffold Law.
Runner and Why the Elevation Differential Is Not About Distance
The other side of the analysis came in Runner v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 13 N.Y.3d 599 (2009). Workers were moving an 800-pound reel of wire down about four stairs. To control the descent they tied a rope to the reel and wrapped it around a metal bar across a door jamb, with the plaintiff and two coworkers holding the loose end as a makeshift pulley.[2]
The rope could not regulate the load. The plaintiff was pulled horizontally into the bar and his hands were injured. Neither he nor the reel fell in the ordinary sense.
The Court of Appeals held Labor Law 240(1) applied. What mattered was that the harm flowed directly from the application of gravity to the object and that the injury was the direct consequence of the failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential. A proper hoist or pulley was the missing device.
Two things follow. A short elevation differential can still be significant when the mass involved is large. And an injury does not have to come from a strike by a falling object to be a falling-object case.
Which Falling Objects Are Inside the Statute and Which Are Not
| What Fell | Typical Analysis |
|---|---|
| A load that slipped from a crane, hoist, choker, or rigging | Core falling-object case. Object was being hoisted when it fell. |
| Material being lowered or raised by hand line or makeshift rig | Strong after Runner where a proper hoisting device was missing. |
| Stacked material or a bundle stored at height that toppled | Turns on whether the work required it to be secured. Often contested. |
| A tool dropped by a worker on a level above | Frequently outside 240(1). Overhead protection under the Industrial Code usually applies. |
| A piece of the building or facade that broke loose on its own | Generally outside 240(1) under Narducci. Look to 241(6) and Labor Law 200. |
| Formwork, shoring, or a structure that collapsed onto workers | Often inside 240(1) as a failure of a required protective device or structure. |
| A hoisted object that struck a worker without hitting the ground | Inside the statute where the harm flowed from gravity acting on the load. |
The rows in the middle are where cases are actually fought, and the answer usually comes out of testimony about how the work was supposed to be performed rather than out of the accident report.
The Claim That Applies When the Scaffold Law Does Not
A falling object outside 240(1) is not a case without a claim. It is a case that runs on different rules.
Industrial Code 23-1.7(a) requires that every place where persons are required to work or pass that is normally exposed to falling material or objects be provided with suitable overhead protection, and it specifies the materials, including tightly laid planks at least two inches thick or three-quarter inch exterior grade plywood or equivalent, on a supporting structure rated for 100 pounds per square foot.[3]
That is a concrete command, so it supports a Labor Law 241(6) claim. Comparative fault applies and the duty is still non-delegable, which means the owner and general contractor answer for it regardless of personal fault. Other sections reach related hazards, including the storage of material and equipment. The full picture is on our guide to Labor Law 241(6) Industrial Code violations.
Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence remain available where the defendant created the hazard, knew about it, or supervised the work. And where the object was a defective product, or the rigging or hoist failed because of a manufacturing or design defect, a product liability claim brings in a manufacturer with its own coverage.
Struck-by accidents that do not involve height at all, including caught-in and caught-between injuries, are covered on our page about struck-by and caught-in accidents.
The Injuries Falling Objects Cause
Weight and distance combine badly. A hand tool dropped from six floors up arrives with enough force to kill, and hard hats are designed for far less than that.
The recurring injuries are traumatic brain injury and skull fracture, cervical and spinal fractures from axial loading, crush injuries to the shoulder and torso, degloving and laceration injuries from sharp material and glass, and amputations. Fatalities are common where a heavy load or a collapse is involved.
A detail that matters in these cases: a hard hat that was worn and still failed does not weaken the claim. It documents that the worker did what he was supposed to do and that the protection the statute required, meaning the securing of the object or the overhead protection below it, was what actually failed.
Who Is Liable, and What the Case Needs Early
The property owner and the general contractor carry the non-delegable duty under both statutes. A construction manager with safety responsibility and stop-work authority can be a statutory agent. The trade that dropped the object or rigged the load is separately liable for its own negligence, and the crane, hoist, or rigging supplier faces product and negligence claims where equipment failed. That analysis is on our page about owner, GC, and construction manager liability.
What the case needs, quickly: the object itself and any rigging, choker, sling, or hoist involved, preserved rather than returned. Photographs of the overhead condition and of whatever protection did or did not exist below. The lift or rigging plan. Crane and hoist inspection and maintenance records. Daily reports identifying which trade was working above. And any OSHA inspection file, which on a serious struck-by accident often contains the best contemporaneous record of the scene.
One point of accuracy worth stating plainly. Labor Law 240(1) protects workers employed in the covered work. It does not extend to pedestrians and members of the public struck by falling material, who instead bring negligence and premises claims against the owner, the contractors, and whoever was responsible for the sidewalk shed, netting, or overhead protection. Those are real and often strong cases; they are not Scaffold Law cases.
