Causes of action under Labor Law §240(1) and Labor Law §241(6) are commonly pleaded in construction accident cases. Both statutes impose nondelegable duties on contractors, owners, and their agents, to provide specified protections to workers. This duty exists regardless of whether or not they exercised supervision or control over the worksite. Both statutes exclude from liability owners of one- and two-family homes who contract for, but do not direct or control, the work. However, the two statutes have material differences in their theories of liability and in the proof they require.
Scope and Meaning
Labor Law §240(1) is familiar to many practitioners. It imposes absolute liability for the failure to provide adequate protection against risks arising from physically significant elevation differentials during the performance of enumerated activities specified in the statute. Comparative negligence is not a defense to liability under §240(1), and liability under the statute is not dependent upon the breach of any outside rules, regulation or standards of conduct. Zimmer v. Chemung County Performing Arts, 65 N.Y.2d 513 (1985).
This content has been archived.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]
