DESIGNER MOCKUP · amparolawfirm.com homepage · brand tokens locked · placeholder photography
Scaffold fall cases come in patterns: plank failures, guardrail failures, tie-off and harness failures, scaffold collapse, outrigger and stabilizer failures, rolling scaffold movement, and suspended scaffold failures.
Scaffold falls are the canonical §240 case. The statute was originally written because scaffold injuries were so common in New York construction. Under §240, the property owner and general contractor are liable when: (1) a worker engaged in covered construction work; (2) was injured by a fall from height; (3) because adequate safety devices were not provided. The contractor cannot escape by saying the worker was careless — the worker’s conduct is not a defense unless it was the sole cause.
A scaffold fall case typically generates multiple defendants: the property owner, general contractor, scaffold subcontractor, scaffold equipment lessor, scaffold manufacturer, and construction manager.
Traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injuries including paraplegia and quadriplegia, spinal fractures and herniated discs, pelvic fractures, lower extremity fractures, internal organ injuries, crush injuries, and fatal injuries. Scaffold falls are one of the leading causes of construction fatalities in New York.
Damages: past and future medical expenses, past lost wages and future lost earning capacity, past and future pain and suffering, loss of consortium, wrongful death where applicable. §240 cases sometimes resolve on summary judgment.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Scaffold cases live in the project paperwork. When Jordan reads a scaffolding subcontract, he reads the indemnity provisions, scope exclusions, change order chain, and schedule of values together. He recognizes the language GCs use to push scaffold safety responsibility onto subs while keeping operational control. He can identify when the safety budget got value-engineered down between bid and execution — a pattern that shows up regularly before serious scaffold accidents.
La mayoría de las lesiones de construcción catastróficas en Nueva York comienzan de la misma manera: un trabajador está en un andamio que no debería haber fallado. Si esto le pasó, la Ley Laboral §240 de Nueva York fue escrita para su caso.
Los casos de caídas de andamios vienen en varios patrones: fallas en las tablas, fallas en las barandas, fallas de amarre y arnés, colapso de andamio, fallas de estabilizadores, movimiento de andamios rodantes, y fallas de andamios suspendidos.
Bajo §240, el propietario y el contratista general son responsables. La responsabilidad es absoluta — la conducta del trabajador generalmente no es una defensa.
Lesiones comunes: traumatismo cerebral, lesiones de la médula espinal, fracturas espinales, discos herniados, fracturas pélvicas, fracturas de extremidades inferiores, lesiones de órganos internos, y lesiones fatales.
Daños: gastos médicos, salarios perdidos, dolor y sufrimiento, pérdida de consorcio, daños por muerte injusta. Resultados anteriores no garantizan un resultado similar.
Cuando Jordan lee un subcontrato de andamio, lee las disposiciones de indemnización, las exclusiones del alcance del trabajo, la cadena de órdenes de cambio, y el calendario de valores juntos. Puede identificar cuándo el presupuesto de seguridad fue reducido por ingeniería de valor entre la oferta y la ejecución.
In a typical negligence case, the defense will argue your case down with comparative-fault arguments — that you weren’t paying attention, that you took a shortcut, that you should have known better. Under §240, those arguments generally cannot defeat the claim. That is why §240 cases tend to settle higher and earlier than negligence-only construction cases.