DESIGNER MOCKUP · amparolawfirm.com homepage · brand tokens locked · placeholder photography

The Scaffold Law · Absolute Liability

Struck-By-Equipment Construction Injury Lawyer in New York City

Construction sites are full of moving equipment. When that equipment strikes a worker, the injuries are typically severe. Struck-by-equipment cases run primarily under Labor Law §241(6) and §200, with §240 occasionally available where the struck-by event involved gravity.

Amparo Law Firm represents workers struck by construction equipment across the five boroughs and Long Island.

Patterns: forklift and telehandler accidents, vehicles operating on site, swinging crane loads, falling crane loads, skid steers and excavators, hoist car and cab strikes, and power equipment kickbacks.

 

THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

§241(6) and the Industrial Code

23-9 (power-operated equipment), 23-9.2 (operation requirements and operator qualifications), 23-9.6 (aerial baskets and lifts), 23-9.5 (excavating machines), 23-1.5 (general safety requirements including operator competence).

§200 — common-law negligence

Where the GC or owner knew of the dangerous condition — chronic backing forklift problems, an operator with a history of incidents, an inadequate spotter system.

§240 in narrow circumstances

When the struck-by event involves gravity — a falling load, a swinging boom.

 

Liable parties: property owner, general contractor, subcontractor employing the equipment operator, equipment lessor if defective, equipment manufacturer in product liability claims.

 

Injuries include crush injuries, traumatic brain injury, spinal injuries, amputations, internal organ damage, and fatalities.

 

WHAT TO DO

  1. Get medical care.
  2. Identify the operator, the equipment, and the company that owned/leased it.
  3. Photograph the scene, equipment, work zone layout, and any traffic control equipment.
  4. Get witness contact info.
  5. Report in writing.
  6. Don’t give a recorded statement.
  7. Call us.

 

Damages: medical, lost earnings, pain and suffering, loss of consortium, wrongful death where applicable.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

 

DEVELOPER PERSPECTIVE

Jordan reads work zone safety plans, spotter assignments, radio protocols, route designations, and pedestrian-vehicle separation the way a developer reads them. He knows when a spotter assignment is on paper only. He recognizes when the GC’s site logistics plan was last updated. He can identify the day or shift when the work zone got more chaotic than the plan accommodated.

The §240 advantage, put plainly.

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.

If you were struck by equipment on a New York construction site, call us today. Free consultation, no fee unless we recover.