New York Labor Law 241(6): When a Safety Code Violation Puts the Owner on the Hook

What Labor Law 241(6) Actually Does — and Why It Matters for Your Case

New York Labor Law 241(6) imposes a non-delegable duty on property owners and general contractors to maintain safe conditions during construction, excavation, and demolition work. That phrase — non-delegable duty — is the heart of the statute. It means the owner cannot point to a subcontractor, a foreman, or a safety officer and say the responsibility belonged to someone else. If a specific provision of the New York Industrial Code Rule 23 was violated and you were injured as a result, the owner and GC are liable.

This is a significant departure from ordinary negligence law, where fault must be traced directly to the party being sued. Under 241(6), the question is whether a concrete Industrial Code regulation was violated — not whether the owner personally did anything wrong.

Who Is Covered Under Labor Law 241(6)

The statute protects workers engaged in construction, excavation, or demolition. That covers a broad range of trades: ironworkers, carpenters, electricians, laborers, plumbers, roofers, and many others. You do not have to be a direct employee of the property owner. Subcontractor employees, union workers, and even some delivery personnel who are performing work integral to the construction project may qualify for protection under the statute.

Which Property Owners and Contractors Can Be Held Liable

Liability under 241(6) attaches to the property owner, the general contractor, and any party who functions as an agent of the owner with supervisory authority over the work. In practice, this often means the developer, the building owner, and the GC are all named as defendants. The statute does not require that they directed your specific task — only that they had the legal responsibility to ensure the site complied with the Industrial Code.

The Role of Industrial Code Rule 23

Industrial Code Rule 23 is the regulatory backbone of every Labor Law 241(6) claim. It sets out specific, concrete requirements for how construction sites must be operated — covering everything from floor openings and excavation edges to the use of power tools, electrical hazards, housekeeping standards, and the safe storage of materials. To bring a 241(6) claim, your attorney must identify the specific Industrial Code provision that was violated and connect that violation to your injury. This is technical, document-intensive work — and it is exactly the kind of case our team has been building for more than 30 years.

Common Industrial Code Violations That Drive 241(6) Claims

Some of the most frequently cited Industrial Code violations in New York construction injury cases include:

• Unguarded floor openings, holes, or open shafts (23-1.7(b))
• Inadequate lighting in work areas (23-1.30)
• Failure to keep passageways and work areas clear of debris and tripping hazards (23-1.7(e))
• Improper storage of materials that creates a falling or collapse hazard (23-2.1)
• Failure to use or provide proper safety equipment during demolition or excavation (23-3.3)
• Inadequate overhead protection from falling objects (23-1.7(a))
• Defective or improperly maintained power tools and equipment (23-1.5)

The Industrial Code is extensive, and the right violation to plead depends entirely on the specific facts of your accident. An experienced construction accident attorney will review the incident report, site conditions, and your injuries to identify every applicable provision.

How 241(6) Differs from Labor Law 240 (The Scaffold Law)

Labor Law 240 — the Scaffold Law — applies specifically to gravity-related injuries: falls from height and injuries caused by falling objects. It imposes strict liability, meaning comparative negligence is generally not a defense available to the owner. Labor Law 241(6) applies more broadly to general site safety violations under the Industrial Code, but it operates under a comparative negligence framework. That distinction matters: if a jury finds you were partially at fault, your recovery may be reduced proportionally. This is one reason why how your case is framed and pleaded from the beginning has a direct impact on the outcome.

Comparative Negligence and What It Means for Your Recovery

Because 241(6) claims are subject to comparative negligence, defense attorneys will work to shift blame onto the injured worker — arguing you ignored a warning, used equipment incorrectly, or failed to follow a supervisor's instruction. These arguments are common and often aggressive. Our team anticipates them early, gathers site photographs, witness statements, OSHA records, and contractor communications before evidence disappears, and builds a factual record that counters the narrative before it takes hold.

Can You Bring Both a 240 and a 241(6) Claim?

Yes, and in many construction accident cases it is appropriate to plead both statutes. If your injury involved a fall from height or a falling object, Labor Law 240 may provide the stronger path to full recovery. If your injury involved a site condition that violated a specific Industrial Code provision — whether or not elevation was involved — 241(6) may apply independently or alongside 240. Our attorneys evaluate every applicable theory of liability from the first consultation so that nothing is left on the table.

What Happens After a Construction Site Injury — and Why Timing Is Critical

The decisions made in the days and weeks immediately after a construction accident have a direct effect on the strength of your case. Evidence degrades quickly on active job sites: debris gets cleared, scaffolding gets reconfigured, and witnesses move on to other projects. New York also imposes strict deadlines that can permanently bar your right to recover if they are missed.

If a government entity — the City of New York, the MTA, a public housing authority, or another municipal agency — owns or controls the property where you were injured, you may be required to file a Notice of Claim within 90 days of the accident. Missing this deadline can eliminate your right to sue entirely. For workers also pursuing no-fault benefits through a vehicle-related incident, a separate 30-day filing deadline applies. Contact our office as soon as possible after your injury so we can identify every deadline that applies to your case and act before any of them pass.

How We Build a Labor Law 241(6) Case

A 241(6) claim is not a simple slip-and-fall case. It requires a working knowledge of New York's Industrial Code, construction industry practices, and the litigation strategies defense firms use to minimize or defeat these claims. Here is how our team approaches the work.

Site Investigation and Evidence Preservation

We move quickly to document conditions before the site changes. That means retaining photographs, requesting surveillance footage, identifying OSHA inspection records, and preserving any physical evidence tied to the hazard that caused your injury. In complex cases, we engage engineering experts who can evaluate site conditions and testify to the specific Industrial Code violations at issue.

Identifying Every Liable Party

Construction projects involve layered contracting relationships — owners, developers, general contractors, construction managers, and multiple subcontractors may all share responsibility for the conditions that injured you. We map the full contractual structure of the project to identify every party with potential liability under 241(6) and related common-law negligence theories. Missing a liable party at the outset can limit your recovery.

Pleading the Right Industrial Code Violations

The specific Industrial Code provision you plead must be concrete and applicable — courts have dismissed 241(6) claims where the cited regulation was too general or did not directly apply to the accident circumstances. Our attorneys have litigated these issues extensively and know which provisions courts have upheld in cases similar to yours. We plead every provision that applies and build the factual record to support each one.

Countering the Comparative Fault Defense

Defense teams in construction cases routinely argue that the injured worker was the proximate cause of their own injury. We address this before it becomes a problem — by gathering witness accounts while memories are fresh, obtaining foreman logs and safety meeting records, and working with experts who can establish that the Industrial Code violation, not any worker conduct, was the cause of the injury.

Trial Preparation From Day One

We do not prepare cases for settlement and then scramble when a defendant refuses to offer fair value. Every case we take is prepared as if it will go to trial. That posture changes how defendants and their insurers evaluate the case — and it changes outcomes. Jason Paris has tried construction cases in New York courts for more than 30 years. Defense attorneys know our firm does not fold under pressure.

Why Construction Workers and Their Families Choose The Paris Law Group

We have represented union ironworkers, undocumented laborers, licensed electricians, and every trade in between. We understand the culture of construction work — the pressure to keep moving, the reluctance to report unsafe conditions, the fear that a claim will cost you your job or your union standing. None of that is lost on us. Our job is to make sure the law works for you the way it was designed to work.

Every file at our firm carries multiple attorneys and two to three paralegals. You are not handed off to a case manager after the intake call. When you have a question, someone answers it — and on weekends, that someone is often Jason Paris directly. We serve clients in English, Spanish, and Russian, and we can meet in person, by phone, or by video — whatever works for you.

Common Questions