New York Labor Law §241(6) — When the Industrial Code Was Violated

Two important features: (1) The Industrial Code provision must be specific — general provisions don’t count; plaintiff must point to a specific subsection mandating a specific safety measure. (2) Comparative fault applies — unlike §240’s near-absolute liability, §241(6) allows comparative-fault analysis. But the worker’s contributory negligence is not a complete bar to recovery. New York is a “pure comparative negligence” state.

COMMON INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISIONS WE CITE

• Fall protection — 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 — slipping hazards, tripping hazards, protection in elevated working areas.
• Storage of materials — 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 — material storage rules.
• Excavation operations — 12 NYCRR 23-4 — sloping, shoring, benching in trenches.
• Demolition operations — 12 NYCRR 23-3 — sequencing, structural support, debris management.
• Power-operated equipment — 12 NYCRR 23-9 — cranes, hoists, derricks, lifts.
• Electrical hazards — 12 NYCRR 23-1.13 — protection against electrical contact, lockout-tagout.
• Personal protective equipment — 12 NYCRR 23-1.8 — eye protection, hard hats, foot protection, hand protection, respiratory protection.

§240 VS. §241(6) VS. §200 — WHICH APPLIES?

• §240 — falls from height; struck by falling objects. Near-absolute liability. Sole proximate cause defense is narrow.
• §241(6) — Industrial Code violations. Wider scope. Comparative fault applies.
• §200 — common-law negligence with non-delegable duty. Requires notice or control. Comparative fault applies.

We plead every applicable theory.

§241(6) imposes liability on the property owner, the general contractor, and statutory agents — parties delegated authority over the work that caused the injury.

Same damages categories as any New York personal injury case. Comparative fault reduces but does not eliminate recovery.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

DEVELOPER-SIDE PERSPECTIVE FOR §241(6)

Jordan reads daily logs, OAC minutes, safety meeting notes, and OSHA citations against the Industrial Code requirements. He recognizes when a “weekly safety walk” is being done as paper compliance only. He can identify the specific provisions most likely to apply to a given accident pattern.