Labor Law 241(6) and 200: The Other Two Paths to Construction Site Liability

Most New York construction injury cases are discussed in terms of the Scaffold Law, Labor Law § 240(1). That statute covers falls from heights and falling objects, and it imposes absolute liability. Many site injuries do not fit that mold. A worker who slips on ice near a trench, trips over rebar left in a walkway, or loses a finger to an unguarded saw has no § 240(1) claim. New York gives that worker two other statutes: Labor Law § 241(6) and Labor Law § 200. This page explains how each works, who can be sued, what must be proven, and the deadlines that apply.

Labor Law § 241(6): Violations of the Industrial Code

Section 241(6) requires owners, general contractors, and their agents to provide "reasonable and adequate protection and safety" to workers engaged in construction, excavation, or demolition. The Court of Appeals held in Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494 (1993), that the statute is enforceable only through a specific regulation. The claim rests on a violation of a concrete rule in the New York State Industrial Code, 12 NYCRR Part 23. A general safety standard, such as a requirement to keep the site "safe," will not support the claim.

Industrial Code sections that commonly support a claim

• 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d): slipping hazards. Employers may not permit workers to use a floor, passageway, walkway, or scaffold that is in a slippery condition from ice, snow, water, grease, or any other foreign substance.
• 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e): tripping hazards. Passageways must be kept free of accumulations of dirt, debris, scattered tools, and sharp projections. Working areas must be kept free of the same.
• 12 NYCRR 23-1.8: personal protective equipment, including eye protection, head protection, and waterproof footwear where the work requires it.
• 12 NYCRR 23-1.21: ladder construction, footing, and securing.
• 12 NYCRR 23-1.30: minimum illumination of 10 foot-candles in work areas and 5 foot-candles in passageways.
• 12 NYCRR 23-3.3: hand demolition, including continuing inspection of walls and floors as the work progresses.
• 12 NYCRR 23-9.2: maintenance and repair of power-operated equipment.

Choosing the right section matters. Courts dismiss § 241(6) claims when the pleaded regulation does not apply to the facts. In Misicki v. Caradonna, 12 N.Y.3d 511 (2009), the Court of Appeals allowed a claim to proceed under 23-9.2(a) because that rule imposed a specific duty to repair a known defect in a power grinder once the defect was reported. The regulation must fit the mechanism of injury exactly.

Who is liable under § 241(6)

Liability falls on the property owner and the general contractor regardless of whether they supervised the work. Under Rizzuto v. L.A. Wenger Contracting Co., 91 N.Y.2d 343 (1998), a violation of the Industrial Code is evidence of negligence, and the owner or contractor answers for it even if a subcontractor created the hazard. The one exception is the owner of a one- or two-family dwelling who does not direct or control the work. That owner is exempt.

Your own employer is not a defendant. Workers' Compensation Law § 11 bars a lawsuit against the employer that pays compensation benefits. The claim runs against the owner, the general contractor, and any construction manager who functioned as the owner's agent.

Comparative fault applies

Unlike § 240(1), a § 241(6) claim is subject to comparative negligence under CPLR 1411. If a jury finds you 20 percent at fault for walking through a debris-strewn area rather than a cleared path, your award is reduced by 20 percent. It is not eliminated. Defense lawyers press this point hard, which is one reason a § 241(6) case should be paired with a § 240(1) claim whenever the facts allow.

Labor Law § 200: Codified Common-Law Negligence

Section 200 codifies the common-law duty of an owner or contractor to provide a safe workplace. Courts recognize two categories of § 200 claims, and the proof differs for each. The Second Department set out the framework in Ortega v. Puccia, 57 A.D.3d 54 (2d Dep't 2008).

Dangerous premises conditions

When the injury arises from a defect in the property itself, such as a hole in the floor, a rotted joist, or a live wire in a wall, the plaintiff must show the owner or contractor created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it. Constructive notice requires proof that the defect was visible and apparent and existed long enough before the accident that it should have been discovered. This is the same analysis used in an ordinary premises liability case.

Means and methods of the work

When the injury arises from how the work was performed, the plaintiff must show the defendant had authority to supervise or control the injury-producing work. General oversight is not enough. Under Comes v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 876 (1993), a general contractor that only monitors schedule and contract compliance lacks the control needed. Evidence that the defendant's superintendent directed the specific task, supplied the equipment, or had the power to stop unsafe work is what carries this claim.

Section 200 is the hardest of the three Labor Law claims to prove. It is usually pleaded alongside § 241(6) and, where a defective tool caused the injury, alongside a products liability claim against the manufacturer.

Deadlines: A Worked Example

Labor Law claims are personal injury actions with a three-year limitations period under CPLR 214(5). If you were hurt on January 15, 2024, a suit against a private owner or contractor must be filed by January 15, 2027.

Public projects follow a different track. If the owner is the City of New York, the School Construction Authority, or another municipal entity, General Municipal Law § 50-e requires a notice of claim within 90 days of the accident. For a January 15, 2024 injury, the notice is due April 14, 2024. Under General Municipal Law § 50-i, the lawsuit must then be commenced within one year and 90 days, by April 15, 2025. Missing the 90-day notice is not automatically fatal. A court may grant leave to serve a late notice under § 50-e(5), but only within the one-year-and-90-day period and only on a showing of a reasonable excuse and lack of prejudice to the municipality. Claims against State agencies go to the Court of Claims under Court of Claims Act § 10(3), which carries its own 90-day notice requirement.

What We Do in a § 241(6) or § 200 Case

1. Site inspection and preservation: we photograph the hazard, obtain the daily logs and toolbox talk records, and send preservation demands for surveillance footage before the condition is cleaned up.
2. Regulation matching: we identify each Industrial Code section that fits the mechanism of injury and plead them in the complaint or bill of particulars, because courts limit plaintiffs to sections properly raised.
3. Contract analysis: we obtain the construction contracts to establish who held supervisory authority and to identify indemnification clauses that bring additional insurers into the case.
4. Workers' Compensation coordination: we account for the compensation carrier's lien under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 when valuing any settlement.

A construction site injury lawyer who handles these cases regularly will know which Industrial Code provisions have survived appellate review for a given fact pattern and which have been held too general to support a claim.

You can contact the Law Offices of Albert Goodwin by phone at 212-233-1233 or by email at [email protected].