Back in March, a column that appeared in these pages began with the triumphant announcement that there was “a crescendo of support” for “reform” of New York Labor Law §240, the so-called “Scaffold Law.”1 The column went on to suggest that imposition of strict liability under the statute has led to “skyrocketing insurance costs” and “the loss of many thousands of construction jobs.” It also represented that “studies” had “shown that the Scaffold Law, which was designed to reduce worker injuries” had instead “contributed to an increase in such injuries.”2
As a stark example of the alleged unfairness and illogic of the “strict liability” imposed by the statute, the column announced that “several courts have held that a plaintiff’s intoxication at the time of the [subject] incident cannot constitute a defense to a Scaffold Law claim.”3
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
