A duty tied to concrete rules
Labor Law 241(6) imposes a non-delegable duty on owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection during construction, excavation, and demolition. Unlike the Scaffold Law, it is not limited to height hazards – it reaches a broad range of construction dangers.
But it has a specific requirement: the claim must be based on a violation of a concrete, specific provision of the New York Industrial Code (12 NYCRR Part 23), not just a general safety standard. Identifying the right code rule is central to a 241(6) case.
What counts as a violation
The Industrial Code contains detailed rules – on things like debris, flooring, lighting, slipping and tripping hazards, and equipment. A 241(6) claim points to a particular rule that was violated and that caused the injury.
Because the rule must be specific enough to impose a concrete obligation, part of building one of these cases is matching the facts of the accident to the precise code provision that fits.
How it differs from the Scaffold Law
Under 241(6), unlike 240(1), a worker’s own negligence can be weighed – comparative fault may reduce recovery. So the protection is broader in scope but not as absolute as the Scaffold Law.
Like 240(1), the duty runs to owners and general contractors, making it a third-party claim alongside workers’ comp. Many construction cases are pleaded under both statutes, with the facts deciding which fits.