Liability in Construction Accidents: How it Works and Who’s Responsible in New York
New York Labor Laws are one of the most dynamic bodies of case law in the state – learning the intricacies of each law and how new court decisions affect the legal interpretation of them can be overwhelming for anyone. But staying up to date on Labor Law developments is crucial for construction accident attorneys, as these laws help determine who can be held liable (or, legally responsible) in a construction site accident and how that liability can be established.
This makes it even more important to retain a lawyer who understands how to effectively investigate and litigate construction accident claims. If you’ve been injured in a construction accident, this guide explains who can be held accountable under the law.
Need to Know:
- Property owners, general contractors, and subcontractors are the entities most often responsible for construction accidents, but not necessarily the only parties at fault. Depending on your case, other entities may be named as defendants as well, but you generally cannot file a claim against your employer due to New York workers’ compensation laws.
- New York State Labor Laws – primarily Sections 200(1), 240(1), and 241(6) – also help determine liability. These laws only apply to workers on active construction sites or those engaged in work activities that are considered ‘protected’ by the Statutes, and generally do not protect pedestrians or mere passersby. However, pedestrians are still able to file general negligence claims if they are injured due to the carelessness of a party on a construction site.
- Three types of liability that may apply in construction accident cases are absolute, comparative, and vicarious fault.
In this Article:
- Potential Liable Parties in Construction Accidents
- Absolute, Comparative, and Vicarious Fault
- Defenses in Construction Accidents
- Construction Accident Liability Case Studies
Potential Liable Parties in Construction Accidents
In most Labor Law cases, a lawyer will automatically move to file a suit against the property owner and general contractor of the construction site. Since they have an obligation to create a safe working environment, they are often legally at-fault should anything go wrong. But there are others who may be at fault as well – possibly even the injured worker. Here’s a brief rundown of the defendants our lawyers frequently name in their construction accident cases.
Property Owner
The property owner of the building or construction site is one of the most common defendants in a construction accident case, because the property owner owes a duty of care to all workers on site.
From an outside perspective, it may not seem like the property owner bears much responsibility for any accident – after all, they’re usually not present on-site every day, nor are they controlling the details of the actual work being done. Despite this, property owners can and should still be held responsible after an accident when a safety standard outlined by the Labor Law is violated. They’re often not as hands-off during construction projects as people think.
Though they may not be as involved as general contractors, property owners still provide some degree of oversight and guidance to every construction site. To make sure the job runs smoothly, the property owner will often attend regular progress meetings, frequently walk through the construction site, or monitor daily logs from the general contractor. Any of these actions could have made the owner aware of safety violations.
Moreover, property owners have the resources, monetary or otherwise, and the power to prioritize safety. Unfortunately, many owners prefer to move quickly, not carefully, leading to safety shortcuts that put workers’ health at risk. Our lawyers encounter many accidents that could have been prevented with an extra hour of preparation or a couple hundred dollars of equipment. It’s disheartening that certain property owners would value profit and efficiency over the health of workers, but that’s what makes NY Labor Laws so important – they protect the most vulnerable. Experienced lawyers look to violations of these Labor Laws to find a path for clients to obtain justice after these egregious events.
However, not all property owners are liable for construction-related accidents on their property. For example, NY Labor Law Sections 240 and 241(6) protect one and two-family homeowners from being sued for work-related accidents that occur during residential work on their property. This safeguards the average homeowner, but the protection has its limits. If the homeowner acts as a supervisor on the project or if the purpose of the work on the property is commercial, they may be held liable for an accident under the Labor Law.
General Contractor
Once your lawyer can establish who the general contractor is, they will almost definitely be brought in as a defendant in a construction accident case. General contractors typically supervise all work being done on a construction site and thus often bear responsibility should something go wrong. There are four key questions our lawyers ask to establish that a business is the legal ‘general contractor’ on a job site:
- Did the business hire subcontractors?
- Did this business supervise the work?
- Did this business have the ability to control the work on site?
- Did this business have the ability to insist on safe work practice and/or remove workers who violate safety protocols?
Like property owners, general contractors may have contracts with subcontractors that indemnify them if the subcontractor acts negligently. This means the general contractor would be legally responsibility for the worker’s damages, but then could potentially be reimbursed by the negligent subcontractor for that loss.
Additionally, if you are an employee for the general contractor, you likely will not be able to sue them if you’re involved in a construction accident. That is because NY Workers’ Compensation (WC) laws prevent you from taking legal action against your employer so long as they provide WC coverage.
Subcontractor
Subcontractors may also be named as defendants in a construction accident case. If an electrician subcontracted by the general contractor leaves loose wires out, and a worker employed by a different contractor trips and falls on them, then that electrical subcontractor can be held liable for the worker’s injuries by virtue of their negligence and without need to rely on the Labor Law statutes.
In one case handled by BOM, a company was delivering materials to a job site that required someone to hoist wooden planks to a higher level of the building. The delivery driver raised the load with the truck’s mechanical hoist, then got out of the truck to help clear materials off the floor. Unfortunately, the worker in charge of securing the wooden planks did not do so effectively, and one of the planks fell 20 feet, striking our client in the back. In this instance, the property owner, general contractor, and subcontractor were all defendants in the case.
Employer
Your employer will almost always be immune from a lawsuit if they have purchased workers’ compensation insurance. Workers’ Compensation laws in New York prevent employers from being liable in an accident. However, there are two notable exceptions that may apply, though like every area of law, there’s no guarantee.
The first exception is if the accident causes a grave injury. A grave injury, which is typically defined as a loss of limb, a disabling brain injury, or other incredibly severe injuries, can make an employer liable to the Defendants in the case if the employer was negligent in causing the accident. But still – even with a grave injury – a worker cannot directly sue his or her employer.
The second exception only applies if your employer has a specific contract with the general contractor or property owner to indemnify the GC or owner and the facts of the incident trigger that indemnity provision. For example, let’s say you work for a carpenter who is hired as a subcontractor on an office renovation project. Your boss’ contract may have a clause that promises to indemnify the owner and/or GC if one of its employees gets injured in a work-related accident. In these cases, liability comes down to the language of the specific contract, which varies on a case-by-case basis. It’s always best to consult a lawyer with complex cases such as this one.
Engineer or Architect
An engineer or architect of the building may be a defendant in a construction accident case, but only in a very narrow scope of scenarios. It’s difficult to hold either of those parties responsible, and there is rarely legal reason to do so. Naming them as a defendant requires the architect or engineer to have “launched a force or instrument of harm” – essentially, they had to have made a significant and affirmative mistake. It’s a high bar to reach, and it happens rarely, which makes it very difficult to litigate. Only a select few cases – for example, a building collapse caused by an engineer’s error – will go after these parties.
Absolute, Vicarious, and Comparative Fault
There are three types of liability commonly applied in New York construction accident cases: absolute, vicarious, and comparative fault. The details of your accident will help determine what type of liability is established in your case.
Absolute Liability
Absolute liability, also referred to as strict liability, is only relevant in Labor Law 240 claims. Labor Law 240, also called the “Scaffold Law,” protects workers from gravity-related injuries, like falls from heights or being struck by falling objects. The law requires construction sites to have proper safety equipment and precautions for laborers exposed to gravity-related dangers.
If you’re injured in a gravity-related accident, and the court accepts that you have a Labor Law 240 claim, the owner, general contractor and potentially other responsible parties will have absolute liability for the accident. This means they will be held completely responsible for damages, regardless of whether they were actively negligent or not, and regardless of whether the plaintiff is partially at fault. So long as you, the worker, were not the sole cause of the accident, all liability falls on the defense.
This may seem extreme at first glance, but there’s a very good public policy reason behind such a strict law. When Labor Law 240 was first enacted in the 1800s, skyscrapers and other tall buildings were being built across New York City for the first time. Working from such great heights presented a new, unique danger to these workers, because falls from these heights can result in incredibly severe injuries, if not death.
The legislature recognized that this special kind of risk needed a special kind of law. Because of the risk and severity, it was decided that the law would enforce severe consequences on property owners and general contractors that allow for unsafe conditions on their sites that lead to gravity-related accidents. If you’re going to have a laborer working 30 feet in the air, the scaffolding used on site must, for example, be properly constructed and include appropriate guardrails.
The law also recognized the power imbalance between property owners/general contractors and their workers. The burden to create a safe place to work, especially in such high-stake scenarios, should go to those in power rather than the workers. Due to their position, workers are often not able to insist on better safety equipment or precautions out of fear that they’ll lose their jobs. So, Labor Law 240 fairly places responsibility on the powers in actual control of the site.
Vicarious Liability
Vicarious liability expands the scope of liability to hold one party legally responsible for the actions of another party, regardless of whether they caused the accident. This principle allows an injured party to file a lawsuit against the general contractor and property owner for an accident, even if a subcontractor was responsible. Even if neither the general contractor nor property owner are present when the accident occurs, vicarious liability means they are still legally responsible. Their position of authority imposes liability on them regardless of their actual role in the incident.
Property owners and general contractors have greater oversight and control over their construction sites, and as such, should have a greater responsibility for protecting the workers on it. Subcontractors may still be named as defendants in a case if they bear some fault for the accident, but they are not the only party responsible for maintaining a safe environment. Ultimate responsibility for the safety of workers falls on those with the most power and control.
Comparative Liability
Comparative liability apportions the fault to each party depending on the facts of the case. If a worker acted in some way that contributed to their accident, they may be held partially liable. The jury can then divvy up the damages depending on how at fault they found the plaintiff and defendants respectively.
Comparative liability can be a valid argument in Labor Law 241(6) and Labor Law 200 cases, but not in Labor Law 240 cases, which imposes absolute liability. If your claim falls under a law that allows for a comparative negligence defense, the jury will decide exactly how much each party is at fault (assuming the case goes to trial). This will impact the amount of damages you receive from the final verdict. So, if you are found to be 30% at fault, for example, then you will only receive 70% of the damages awarded.
Defenses in Construction Accidents
Oftentimes, defendants will fight tirelessly to pin the cause of the accident on the injured party, and it’s important that your attorney knows these defenses and how to tackle them.
Some common construction accident defenses include:
- The Recalcitrant Worker: This defense is used in cases where the injured worker ignores specific safety instructions. For example, a worker who chooses not to use the readily available harnesses when working on a project 20 feet in the air, after he had been instructed to do so, may be labeled a recalcitrant worker by the defense. The proper equipment was present and available, and the worker was aware of it, so such a lawsuit could be dismissed.
- Sole and Proximate Cause: Similar to the recalcitrant worker defense, this asks if the injured worker was solely responsible for their accident. A classic example of this involves a worker who stands on a bucket instead of a ladder or places a ladder on a visibly unsteady or risky surface. If the accident only occurred because of the worker’s own actions in mis-using a safety device or failing to use an available safety device for no good reason, the worker will likely not be able to recover damages.
- Comparative Negligence: This is not a valid defense in Labor Law Section 240 cases, which imposes absolute liability on the defendant. It is, however, a valid defense in Labor Law 241(6) and 200 cases, and any other general negligence claim. Though it does not allow the defense to avoid liability entirely, it allows the defendant to argue that they are not entirely to blame.
Construction Accident Case Studies
Let’s walk through two construction accident cases our firm has handled, to highlight how the nuances of each case can impact the way we prove liability.
Elevated Subway Construction: What if the Client is Not a Construction Worker?
This case, which resulted in the largest non-medical malpractice jury verdict in New York history, involved a bicyclist in New York City who was struck by falling debris while crossing under an elevated subway line. Our client, the bicyclist, suffered severe, traumatic injuries to his spine that resulted in lifelong paralysis from the waist down and serious chronic pain. These injuries will require our client to receive medical care for the rest of his life.
Our client was not a construction worker; so, this could never have been a Labor Law case. However, our attorneys were able to attack it in a similar way to other Labor Law 240 cases, because it had all the hallmarks of a construction accident case (but without absolute liability on their side). This meant our Firm had to delve as deeply into liability as they possibly could.
Our lawyers painted a picture that illustrated the many ways the defense failed to create a safe construction environment. As the workers were taking apart some of the track on the elevated subway line, they removed an old, rotten railroad tie – the wooden plank that sits perpendicular to train tracks. While this was happening, our client was biking under the subway line. Tragically, as the workers dropped the railroad tie to ground level, it hit our client and caused his injuries.
The first failure involved miscommunication between the workers. If those on the track and those on the street had communicated effectively, they would have known that it was either unsafe to let someone forward or unsafe to drop the tie. Second, there should have been spotters near the drop zone, to give an “all clear” before dropping any debris. Third, the debris should have been tied off and safely lowered down to street level, not dropped. If any one of these precautions or others had been put in place, our client would not have suffered his injuries.
Even if it wasn’t a Labor Law 240 case, our lawyers were able to apply some of the same concepts they typically use when litigating Labor Law cases, resulting in a finding of 100% liability against the Defendant and a $110 million jury verdict for our client. Our attorneys’ thorough investigation allowed them to craft a compelling narrative for the jury, even without absolute liability on their side.
Air Chiller Installation: What Constitutes a Covered Activity?
This case involved a worker who was installing an air chiller unit at a hospital in the Bronx. The hospital required a massive cooling unit to be hooked up every summer to provide adequate cooling and circulation, but the mechanical rooms within the hospital could not accommodate such a large piece of machinery. So, it was placed outside the hospital building on a trailer and hooked up to the building’s HVAC system through a hose. While our client was working to install the air chiller, the machine fell off its flatbed truck, crushing our client to death.
Our lawyers firmly believed this case fell under the purview of Labor Law 240. The defense argued this was not a Labor Law 240 case, saying that the installation of an air chiller unit was not a covered activity. Merely connecting a hose, they contended, cannot truly be considered a ‘renovation’ or ‘alteration’ to the property. The lower courts sided with the defense on this matter and dismissed the case. Undeterred, our attorneys filed an appeal.
Now, our attorneys were tasked with arguing why the case should be covered by Labor Law 240 in front of the Appellate Division. One of their strongest arguments came down to the reason the air chiller unit was hooked up. Our attorneys argued that because the chiller was critical to the ongoing operation of the building and vital to patient well-being during the summer, its installation should be considered a physical alteration to the building; even if the isolated task of connecting the hose was simple and non-destructive in nature. The Appellate Division agreed, reversed the lower Court’s decision, and re-instated our clients’ case. Once it was established that this was a Labor Law 240 case, the defense was forced to settle.
Our attorneys’ novel argument may have had less prior case law to back it up, but it became a linchpin in deciding the case, and offered guidance other lawyers can look to for future Labor Law cases. Ultimately, the case settled for $15 million.
Free Legal Consultation
Construction accident liability is never an easy, cut-and-dry issue. Many intermingling factors come into play, and multiple elements can throw a wrench into the case. But skilled, experienced attorneys can handle these factors as they come and know how to adapt to the ever-changing field of construction accident case law. If you’re looking to file a personal injury claim after a construction accident, contact Block O’Toole & Murphy by calling 212-736-5300 or filling out our Contact Form for a free legal consultation.