Falling Objects Kill More Construction Workers Than Any Hazard Except Falls
The Bureau of Labor Statistics data on construction fatalities is stark: after falls, being struck by an object is the second leading cause of construction death nationwide. OSHA's "Fatal Four" analysis attributes approximately 10.8% of annual construction fatalities to struck-by-object incidents — hundreds of deaths every year from tools, materials, and structural elements that fall from above.
The nonfatal injury picture is even more pronounced. The Center for Construction Research and Training (CPWR) found that struck-by incidents account for 25.8% of nonfatal construction injuries — making falling objects the single largest cause of serious non-fatal injuries in the industry. The CDC NIOSH Liberty Mutual Workplace Safety Index estimates that the average construction injury costs $42,000 in direct and indirect costs; a fatal incident averages $1.22 million. In a high-wage market like New York City — where union ironworkers earn $90-plus per hour in wages and benefits under their trade agreements — those injury costs compound quickly into multi-million dollar economic losses for workers and families.
In New York City specifically, the NYC Department of Buildings documented 482 construction injuries and 7 fatalities in 2024. Struck-by incidents — tools, materials, and structural components falling from above — account for a significant share of those nonfatal injuries citywide.
In New York, where high-rise construction creates sustained multi-story exposure, falling objects are a constant hazard. Workers 40 stories up drop tools. Crane loads slip rigging. Concrete decks shed debris. Building facades discharge components. Workers below — laborers, delivery workers, equipment operators, pedestrians — bear the impact.
New York Labor Law 240(1) was designed partly to address this hazard. Its list of required devices — "scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes" — reflects a statute intended not just to prevent workers from falling, but to prevent objects from falling onto workers. Understanding how courts apply 240 to falling-object cases, what you need to prove, and where these cases succeed or fail is essential for any worker struck by a falling object on a New York construction site.
How the Narducci Standard Works
In Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Associates (96 N.Y.2d 259, 2001), the Court of Appeals addressed Labor Law 240 falling-object claims directly. The plaintiff, a maintenance worker, was struck by a piece of glass that fell from a window frame. The court analyzed whether the glass was a "falling object" within the statute's protection.
The court established a two-part test. First, the falling object must have required securing for the purposes of the undertaking. Second, the object must not be one that workers were expected to encounter as a normal condition of the work environment without specific securing measures.
This framework distinguishes between objects that should have been secured — a load being lifted by crane, materials stored at elevation, tools near an open edge — and objects that incidentally fell in ways the statute does not contemplate — a pedestrian dropping something unrelated to the construction activity, for example.
The "required to be secured" element is the central question in most falling-object cases. Courts ask: given the specific construction task being performed, was this type of object one that needed to be secured against falling? A load being lifted by a crane must be secured — that is the entire point of rigging. A bundle of rebar stored near the edge of an elevated platform must be secured against tipping off the edge. Scaffold planks must be secured against the wind. In each of these cases, the object required securing, and the failure to secure it falls within 240's scope.
Distinguishing 240 Falling-Object Cases from Ordinary Negligence
Not every falling object on a construction site creates a Labor Law 240 claim. The statute's falling-object coverage has boundaries, and understanding them helps predict case outcomes.
Objects that require securing: A crane load, a bundle of materials, a tool or piece of equipment stored at height near an open edge. These are 240 cases.
Objects that fell in the course of work but did not require independent securing: A hammer that a worker accidentally drops while using it in the normal course of their task. Courts have struggled with these cases. If the tool was being used as a tool — not being stored, not being lifted — the argument is made that it did not require "securing" in the 240 sense. This is a contested area of law, and results have varied.
Objects from a "falling" structure: In Wilinski v. 334 East 92nd Housing Dev. Fund Corp. (18 N.Y.3d 1, 2011), the Court of Appeals addressed pipes that fell onto a worker who was working at the same level. The court held that the same-level nature of the fall does not automatically eliminate 240 coverage — the question is whether the gravity-related hazard required protection. Where a structure or stored objects at height fall onto a worker at a lower level, the analysis typically supports a 240 claim.
Practical Evidence in Falling-Object Cases
Proving a falling-object Labor Law 240 case requires establishing what fell, from where, and why it was not secured. This sounds straightforward — but in practice, the immediate aftermath of a falling-object accident often involves significant scene disruption. The object that fell may be removed, broken, or repositioned. The storage location may not be obvious. Witnesses may have been looking elsewhere.
Key evidence in these cases:
The object itself: If a tool, material, or component struck the plaintiff, it should be photographed and preserved. The object's weight, condition, and any securing devices (or lack thereof) are relevant.
The fall location: Where was the object when it fell? Was there a storage rack near an open edge? Was it on a scaffold platform? Was it being lifted by crane? The geometry of the fall establishes whether securing was required and what device should have been in place.
Witness testimony: Workers above who saw the object fall, or who were near it before it fell, are critical witnesses. Their observations about how the object was stored, whether it was secured, and what happened immediately before it fell are often the foundation of the liability case.
Safety coordinator records: Larger construction sites maintain safety logs, daily site inspection reports, and toolbox talk records. These records may document prior issues with unsecured materials, prior close calls, or specific directives about material storage that were not followed.
Labor Law 241(6) as an Alternative Theory
When falling-object cases fall outside the 240 analysis — because the object did not require independent securing in the 240 sense — Labor Law 241(6) may provide an alternative claim based on Industrial Code violations.
12 NYCRR 23-1.7(a)(1): "Every place where persons are required to work or pass that is normally exposed to falling objects or materials shall be provided with suitable overhead protection. Such overhead protection shall consist of tightly planked or solid platforms of adequate strength."
12 NYCRR 23-1.33: "Construction, demolition, alteration, or repair shall be so conducted as to prevent the endangerment of persons... Any potentially dangerous material not required for present use shall be removed from the area."
These provisions impose specific affirmative duties. Violation of either — particularly the overhead protection requirement in 23-1.7(a) — can support a 241(6) claim in falling-object cases where 240 is contested.
Settlement Values in Falling-Object Cases
Falling-object injuries in construction cover an enormous range of severity. A tool dropped from a moderate height onto a hardhat-wearing worker may cause a mild concussion. A beam falling from a crane 20 stories above onto an unprotected worker can be fatal. The legal framework addresses both, but the damages differ dramatically.
Mild TBI from falling object (brief LOC, full cognitive recovery): $300,000 to $800,000
Moderate TBI (weeks of hospitalization, partial cognitive recovery): $1 million to $3 million
Severe TBI with permanent impairment: $3 million to $10 million
Spinal cord injury from falling object: $5 million to $20 million
Fatal falling-object accident: $2 million to $8 million wrongful death
These ranges reflect New York jury verdicts and settlements in reported cases. They are not guarantees — each case is fact-specific, and the medical evidence drives the damages calculation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: A tool fell from five stories up and struck my shoulder. I needed surgery. Is that a Labor Law 240 case?
Yes, almost certainly. A tool or piece of equipment stored or placed at height — five stories above the work area — is exactly the type of object that requires securing for the purposes of the construction activity. If the tool was near an open edge without barriers or restraints, if it was being used at elevation without a tether or lanyard, or if it was stored on a platform without edge protection, the failure to secure it is a 240 violation. Your shoulder surgery, the resulting medical costs, lost wages, and pain and suffering are all recoverable. The analysis will focus on exactly where the tool was, how it came to be near the edge, and what securing measures were or were not in place.
Q: I was walking through the construction site to get to my work area when I was struck by falling concrete debris. Am I a covered worker under Labor Law 240?
The analysis depends on the specific facts. Workers "employed" in covered construction activities are protected. Courts have held that a worker does not need to be performing the specific task that caused the falling object — being present on the site to perform your own work may be sufficient. A laborer walking through the site to reach their work area is performing construction-related activity. Visitors who are not workers may have more limited claims. A delivery worker bringing materials to the site occupies a middle ground — courts have addressed this. The critical question is whether the person struck was present on the site in connection with the construction work.
Q: The falling object was a piece of the building facade that broke off, not a construction tool or material. Is that covered?
This raises questions about whether the accident is covered as a construction accident at all versus a premises liability case. If renovation, repair, or maintenance work was being performed on the building facade — if workers were there doing covered activities — and a component fell as a result of that work, it likely falls within 240's coverage. If the facade piece simply fell due to deterioration unrelated to any current construction activity, it may be a premises liability case under a different theory. The distinction is whether active construction work was occurring and whether the falling object was related to it.
Q: I was struck by a load being lifted by crane on a neighboring construction site, not the site where I was working. Do I have a claim?
This is a fact-specific scenario. Labor Law 240 applies to workers "employed" at the construction site. If you were not employed at the neighboring site and not performing any covered work there, you may not be a covered worker under 240 with respect to that site's activities. However, you may have a common law negligence claim against the neighboring site's owner and operator for failing to prevent the falling load from endangering people outside the site boundary. You may also have claims under Labor Law 241(6) if the falling load resulted from violations of specific Industrial Code provisions. A common law negligence claim against the crane owner for negligent operation is also available.
Q: My employer says falling objects are just a risk of construction work and I accepted that when I took the job. Does assumption of risk apply?
No. In New York, the doctrine of assumption of risk does not apply to Labor Law 240 claims. Workers do not assume the risks created by violations of the statute. The Court of Appeals has been explicit: a worker who steps onto a construction site does not thereby waive the protection of the Scaffold Law by accepting employment in a dangerous industry. Workers have no meaningful ability to demand safe conditions from property owners and general contractors who control the site. The legislature understood this when it enacted the non-delegable duty in 1885, and every amendment since has reinforced it. Assumption of risk is not a viable defense in a 240 case.
Call (888) 702-1581 for a free case review. There is no fee unless we recover.
