Construction accidents spring from myriad circumstances ranging from falls from or through roofs of buildings, being run over and crushed by construction equipment, falls from structures other than roofs--such as scaffoldings, ladders or windows, and even when workers are wearing safety harnesses and lanyards--collisions with motor vehicles, mechanical defects in lifting and operational equipment, fires and explosions involving severe burns, trench collapses that bury workers in soil, electrocution, exposure to hazardous chemicals, etc. Accidents may result from inadequate safety inspections, someone else's negligence, poor equipment and OSHA violations.
If a construction worker is injured, in many cases a claim can be brought against the owner or contractor as well as a workers' compensation claim. Workers' compensation benefits may not be enough to cover the expenses that can result from the serious injuries that construction accidents can cause, it is important to hold all the negligent parties responsible.
Despite being home to many of the world’s tallest skyscrapers New York has had a remarkably low injury and mortality rate among construction workers during its history when compared to other cities in the United States thanks to the age old statute known as Scaffold Law. New York Labor Law Sections 240 and 241 are known as “safe place to work laws” or “scaffold laws”. The Scaffold law brings to its fold a plethora of functions and a wide variety of materials encompassing the entire construction landscape providing safety benefits to construction workers functioning hundreds of feet off the ground.
Determining the Liability Question
In addition to the common law duty of building owners to provide a safe work-place, the New York Labor Law statutes contain various provisions that affect the liability of an owner. The liability under 240/241 is extremely broad and unforgiving as the law zealously guards the construction workers in the event of an accident. The owner or contractor will be liable irrespective of whether a worker was at fault or refused to use safety equipment. These laws make sure that all workers have a safe place to work especially on construction sites, as they are inherently dangerous and construction workers have little control over their job safety and equipment.
As per the decision in Johnson v. Packaging Corp. of Am., 2000 WL 893284, the scaffolding law statute is only applicable where the injury is elevation related--i.e., a fall or an injury resulting from a construction-related object falling on the plaintiff. The Scaffold law provides for strict liability of the owners and contractors if they have failed to furnish the employee with non- defective safety devices. In this regard the employee is not required to be working at an elevated position. The law covers you even if you are working in a basement if your elevation is above the floor Examples of falls covered by Labor Law Section 240 include: Falls from portable and fixed ladders, along with scaffolds. Common causes of scaffold accidents include plank slippage and support failures. Of course, many of these could be prevented by appropriate safety measures like guardrails and fall arrest systems. The law imposes a non-delegable duty of reasonable care upon owners and contractors to ensure that the work is conducted in a safe manner.
The liability is absolute and the employee’s fault, if any, is normally not even considered when establishing responsibility for an accident unless he had refused to follow explicit directions, or had refused to use an appropriate safety device. The employer is absolutely liable even if the employee refused to use safety equipment, ignored company safety policies, or was impaired by drugs or alcohol during the time of the accident. New York State is the only state that imposes such a liability standard. In the latter case, the third party must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the employee absolutely refused the use of a safety device offered despite the dangers involved. This is known as the "recalcitrant worker defense." In a decision rendered by the Court of Appeals in December 2004 in the case Cahill v. The Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, the court narrowed the scope of Labor Law 240/241 by reversing a lower court's decision. The court held that a worker who is provided adequate safety devices and trained on their use, is not entitled to strict liability protections if he/she decides to forgo proper protection and is injured as a result.
The damages may include money for pain and suffering, healthcare expenses, wage loss and loss of pension or other fringe benefits. Such open ended liability resulted in spiraling of insurance premium and has attracted severe criticism from the manufacturers and owners that the law is draconian and there is strong demand for repealing Scaffold law.
