The New York Scaffold Law: who is responsible when a worker falls

Under New York Labor Law §240(1), often called the Scaffold Law, contractors, owners and their agents must furnish or erect scaffolding, hoists, ladders, slings, braces and similar devices so as to give proper protection to workers on a construction site. It is one of the few places in New York law where responsibility does not depend on proving that anyone behaved carelessly. That is what makes it unusual, and it is why the section is argued over so often.

This article explains what the statute says, who it covers, and how it fits alongside the two neighboring sections it is regularly confused with.

What does Labor Law §240(1) actually require?

The statute is directed at a specific hazard: the effects of gravity on a construction site. It requires that certain safety devices be provided and that they be placed and operated so as to give proper protection.

Two features do most of the work in practice.

The first is that the duty is non-delegable. An owner or general contractor cannot escape it by pointing to a subcontractor who was actually running the site. The obligation attaches to the owner and contractor whether or not they supervised, directed or controlled the work.

The second is that where a violation of the statute is a proximate cause of a worker's injury, liability follows without the injured worker having to establish negligence in the ordinary sense. Courts often describe this as absolute liability. That phrase is a shorthand, and it is worth being precise about what it does and does not mean, which the next section covers.

Does absolute liability mean the worker always wins?

No, and this is the most common misunderstanding.

Absolute liability describes the standard once a violation and causation are established. It does not remove the requirement to establish them. Several arguments remain available:

• The statute has to apply to the task. §240(1) reaches elevation-related risks. Injuries on a site that have nothing to do with a height differential or a falling object generally fall outside it.
• The device has to have failed to give proper protection. A worker who was provided an adequate safety device, who was instructed to use it and who chose not to, may be found to be the sole proximate cause of the injury. Where that is established, the statute does not impose liability.
• Causation still has to be shown. A statutory violation that did not cause the injury does not create responsibility for it.

The practical effect is narrower than always wins and considerably stronger than an ordinary negligence claim.

Who is covered, and who is excepted?

§240(1) is directed at contractors, owners and their agents. The statute contains an express exception for owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work. A homeowner who hires a roofer and stays out of the way is generally outside the section. A homeowner who acts as their own general contractor may not be.

The section protects people employed in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure. Whether a particular task counts as one of those activities, rather than as routine maintenance, is frequently the contested question.

How is §240 different from §241(6) and §200?

These three sections are regularly cited together and do different things.

The distinction that trips people up most often is under §241(6): a general exhortation to keep a site safe is not enough. The rule relied on has to be a specific command in the Industrial Code.

What about workers compensation?

An injured worker's remedy against their employer is generally workers compensation, which is available regardless of fault and does not require anyone to be sued.

Labor Law §240(1) runs against owners and contractors, who are frequently not the injured worker's employer. That is why a site injury can involve a compensation claim and a separate claim against other parties on the site at the same time. They are different systems answering different questions.

Does immigration status matter?

The protections of the Labor Law are written in terms of persons employed on a site. They are not conditioned on immigration status.

Deadlines

Claims of this kind are subject to time limits, and the limits differ depending on who the defendant is. A claim against a public entity carries its own, much shorter, notice requirement that runs long before the ordinary limitations period expires. Anyone considering a claim should confirm which deadline applies to their situation early rather than late, because the shortest one governs.

This article is general information about New York law. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. The law changes and how it applies depends on the specific facts. Speak with a lawyer about your own situation.

Current as of August 2026.