Scaffold Falls in NY — Labor Law §240 + Workers' Comp

The “scaffold law” — Labor Law §240 — is one of the most plaintiff-favorable statutes in any U.S. injury context. Use it.

TL;DR

• A fall from a scaffold on a NY job site triggers two parallel claims: workers’ compensation against the employer, and a Labor Law §240 third-party claim against the owner and general contractor.
• §240 imposes strict liability — the worker does not have to prove negligence, just that the elevation-related hazard the statute is designed to prevent caused the injury.
• The §240 claim recovers pain and suffering and is not capped — typically multiples of the WC outcome.
• The sole proximate cause and recalcitrant worker defenses are narrow and usually fail when the worker has any reasonable basis for the conduct.

What §240 covers

Labor Law §240(1) requires owners and general contractors to furnish or erect — or cause to be furnished or erected — scaffolding, ladders, ropes, blocks, pulleys, irons, ropes, and “other devices” that give “proper protection” to construction, repair, alteration, painting, and cleaning workers.

When that protection fails — the scaffold collapses, the planks shift, the harness wasn’t provided, the guardrails were missing — and a worker is injured by the elevation-related hazard, §240 applies.

The statute is strict liability against owner and contractor regardless of:

• Whether the owner/contractor directly caused the failure
• Whether the worker contributed to the fall through inattention or error
• Whether the employer or some other party provided the equipment

The protected hazards are elevation-related: falls from height and being struck by falling objects.

What §240 does not cover

• Routine maintenance (not construction/repair/alteration/painting/cleaning) — much-litigated
• Falls from de minimis heights — case-specific (a step ladder is included; a small step usually isn’t)
• One- and two-family homeowner exception
• Sole proximate cause cases (rare but real)

Common scaffold fall scenarios

• Frame scaffold collapse — incomplete erection, missing cross braces, defective frame pieces
• Pipe scaffold failure — connections not secured, planking insufficient
• Suspended scaffold (swing stage) malfunction — cable failure, motor failure, rigging defect
• Mast climber issues — motor failure, hoist defect
• Plank failure — defective lumber, improper grade, overload
• Worker pushed or knocked off — by load swing, equipment, falling debris
• Stepping off / through opening — gap in planking, removed safety rail
• Equipment fall — tools, materials falling on scaffolded workers below

Common scaffold fall injuries

• Closed head injury and traumatic brain injury
• Spinal cord injury, fracture, herniation
• Multiple long-bone fractures
• Pelvic and acetabular fractures
• Shoulder, knee, ankle fractures and ligamentous injuries
• Internal injuries
• Fatal injuries — surviving family pursues §240 wrongful death plus WC §16 death benefits

What the defense does

The owner / contractor / their insurer will look for:

• Sole proximate cause — the worker had safety equipment, knew how to use it, was instructed to use it, chose not to use it, and that choice was the sole cause. The defense fails if any of these elements is missing.
• Recalcitrant worker — refused to use available safety equipment despite instructions. Same elements as sole proximate cause; narrowly applied.
• Not a §240 protected activity — argues the work was maintenance, not repair/alteration. The activity-by-activity case law is detailed.
• No safety statute violation — argues the equipment was adequate and worked properly. For scaffold collapses, this is usually a loser.

These defenses rarely defeat §240 cases that involve actual scaffold collapses or absent safety equipment.

The WC + §240 coordination

The injured worker collects WC from day one — wage replacement, medical, eventually SLU or classification. The §240 case proceeds in Supreme Court on a separate track, usually 18-36 months to resolution. When the §240 case settles or goes to verdict, the WC carrier holds a §29 lien on the recovery for what it has paid out.

The lien math is negotiable in most scenarios — §29(5) framework, equitable considerations, contribution to legal fees. Getting the lien resolution right can mean tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional net recovery for the worker.

What to do next

If you fell from a scaffold on a NY job site, mention it specifically when you contact me directly. Photos of the scaffold, witness names, and the foreman / safety personnel identities matter.

Frequently asked questions

Is a scaffold fall automatically a §240 case in NY?

Almost always, if it occurred during construction, repair, alteration, painting, or cleaning work and proper safety devices weren’t provided. Unsecured scaffolds that move, shift, or collapse are per se §240 violations under Court of Appeals case law.

Can the worker’s fault defeat a §240 scaffold claim?

Rarely. The ‘sole proximate cause’ defense requires that the worker had adequate safety equipment available, was instructed to use it, knew how to use it, and chose not to — and that this choice was the sole cause. If any element is missing, the defense fails.

How much can a scaffold fall case be worth?

Combined WC plus §240 recoveries on serious scaffold falls routinely reach seven figures, and severe injuries (TBI, spinal cord, multiple fractures, fatalities) often produce eight-figure outcomes. The Labor Law strict-liability framework drives this — recovery includes pain and suffering and is uncapped.

Related pages

• Construction-site injuries
• Ladder falls
• Struck-by injuries
• Can I sue my employer instead of filing workers’ comp?
• What is a Schedule Loss of Use award?