The Data on Who Gets Killed and Why
The construction industry kills more workers than almost any other sector of the American economy. The Bureau of Labor Statistics Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries documented 1,069 construction fatalities in 2022 — more than in manufacturing, more than in transportation, more than in any industry except extraction. In New York, where construction is dense, vertical, and perennial, the risk concentrates in predictable trades.
OSHA's analysis of construction fatalities identifies the "Fatal Four" — the four causes responsible for 58.6% of all construction deaths nationwide:
Falls overwhelmingly dominate. And within falls, the trades with the greatest height exposure take the highest losses: structural ironworkers, roofers, and scaffolding erectors die at rates that dwarf most other occupations in the American economy.
Understanding which trades carry the greatest risk — and what legal protections exist for workers in those trades — is not an academic exercise. It is the difference between a worker knowing their rights and a family learning what they should have known too late.
By the Numbers: Fatality Rates by Trade
The Center for Construction Research and Training (CPWR) — the research arm of the Building and Construction Trades Department — publishes trade-specific fatality data showing exactly which workers face the greatest risk. Fatality rates per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers:
(Source: CPWR, The Construction Chart Book, 6th edition)
A roofer dies on the job at roughly 8.5 times the rate of the average American worker. A structural ironworker dies at more than 7 times that rate. In New York City, where the NYC Department of Buildings documented 7 construction fatalities and 482 injuries in 2024 alone, these trade-specific risks concentrate in high-density urban construction — supertall towers, high-rise residential, and the extensive renovation market.
Structural Iron and Steel Workers
Structural ironworkers — the workers who erect the steel frames of New York's towers, bridges, and parking structures — consistently record the highest fatality rates in the construction industry. CPWR data shows that ironworkers die at a rate of 25.2 deaths per 100,000 FTE workers per year, a rate more than 7 times the all-industry average.
The hazards are direct: ironworkers work at significant heights, on open-web steel frames, walking on beams sometimes only a few inches wide, connecting steel members weighing thousands of pounds. A misstep, a failed connection, a premature lifting release — any of these can produce a fall of dozens of stories or a struck-by-object injury from shifting steel.
Under Labor Law 240(1), ironwork is squarely covered — it is construction work involving significant elevation hazards. The statute requires proper scaffolding, safety nets, personal fall arrest systems, and other protective devices. When an ironworker falls because a temporary platform was inadequate, because safety netting was not in place, because a harness attachment point failed, the law provides a strict liability claim against the owner and general contractor.
Ironworkers in New York are typically represented by the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers (IABSOIW) — Local 40 (structural) and Local 361 (reinforcing) in the New York metropolitan area. Union status does not affect the Labor Law 240 claim, but union contract safety provisions may provide additional evidence of the standards that were supposed to be in place.
Roofers and Waterproofers
Roofers work at height on finished and unfinished roof surfaces, on slopes, in heat, on materials that can become slippery with moisture or temperature. The Bureau of Labor Statistics consistently ranks roofing among the top three most dangerous construction occupations by fatality rate — approximately 20 to 25 deaths per 100,000 workers annually in recent years.
Falls from roofs are among the most common and most preventable construction fatalities. OSHA's fall protection standard (29 CFR 1926.502) requires guardrails, safety nets, or personal fall arrest systems on roofs where workers are exposed to a fall of six feet or more. In practice, these standards are routinely violated on New York construction sites — particularly on smaller commercial and residential projects where safety culture is weaker and OSHA enforcement is less consistent.
For roofers with 240 claims, a key issue is often the characterization of the work. "Repair" of a roof is covered by Labor Law 240. "Maintenance" that does not constitute repair may not be — courts have been asked to distinguish between significant repairs to a roof structure versus routine maintenance of already-installed materials. These distinctions matter at the margin. A roofer replacing damaged sections of a membrane roof is clearly doing "repair" work. A roofer performing routine annual inspection and sealant touch-ups occupies a grayer zone. An experienced attorney analyzes the specific task at the time of the accident, not the general nature of the employer's business.
Crane Operators and Riggers
Crane accidents are among the most visually dramatic and most legally complex construction accidents. They involve multiple potential defendants — the crane owner, the crane operator (as an employee), the general contractor, the property owner, and potentially the crane manufacturer — and multiple legal theories, including Labor Law 240, product liability, and Labor Law 200 negligence.
Crane operator fatality data from BLS shows approximately 15 to 20 deaths per 100,000 workers annually, but crane accidents also cause disproportionate harm to workers who are not crane operators — riggers, ironworkers, and bystanders who are struck by swinging loads, failing hoists, or crane collapses.
New York City has specific crane permit requirements administered by the Department of Buildings. Cranes used in New York City require Special Inspection. Violations of these requirements become relevant evidence in Labor Law 200 negligence claims and can support OSHA civil penalty proceedings. But they do not change the Labor Law 240 analysis, which is strict liability regardless of permit compliance.
Laborers and Demolition Workers
General laborers performing demolition work face unique hazards: unstable structures, falling debris, unexpected collapse, hazardous materials, and the absence of the engineered stability present in new construction. The BLS fatality rate for laborers in construction is approximately 15 deaths per 100,000 workers annually.
Demolition work is explicitly covered by Labor Law 240 — "demolition" appears in the statutory text. Workers in demolition who are struck by falling structural members, who fall through weakened floors, or who are buried by collapse have clear Labor Law 240 claims. The nature of demolition work — systematically removing structural integrity from a building — creates inherent gravity hazards that the statute was designed to address.
Electricians
Electricians face two distinct categories of fatal risk: falls (the #1 cause of construction death) and electrocution (the #4 cause, but disproportionately concentrated in the electrical trade). BLS data shows approximately 14 to 17 deaths per 100,000 electricians annually from all causes.
Falls by electricians often involve ladder accidents — an electrician working on a ladder while accessing an electrical panel, running conduit overhead, or installing fixtures in a stairwell. Ladder accidents are governed by Labor Law 240(1) when the work involves construction, demolition, repair, alteration, painting, cleaning, or pointing. Electricians performing new construction wiring, running conduit in a building under renovation, or installing panels in an alterations project are covered. Electricians performing routine service calls — replacing outlets, troubleshooting circuits — in completed, occupied buildings may be in a grayer area.
Scaffolding Erectors
OSHA estimates that approximately 65% of construction workers spend time on scaffolding, and that approximately 4,500 scaffold-related injuries occur nationally each year, with 60 fatalities. In New York, where dense urban construction creates extensive scaffolding systems, these numbers concentrate.
Scaffolding erectors — workers who actually build, move, and dismantle [scaffold systems](/accidents/scaffold-falls) — are paradoxically both among the most exposed and among the most legally protected. They work on scaffold systems that are not yet complete, creating hazards that completed scaffolding would prevent. Their Labor Law 240 claims frequently involve questions about what protective measures were required during erection itself, not just during use.
What the Data Means for Your Rights
The statistical prominence of falls in construction fatalities is not a coincidence. It reflects the fundamental nature of construction work — tasks performed at elevation, on structures that are inherently incomplete and unstable, by workers who have limited ability to demand safe equipment from the parties who control the job site.
New York's Labor Law 240 exists precisely because the legislature recognized that data pattern in 1885 and chose to shift the risk allocation. Property owners who profit from construction and general contractors who manage it are in the best position to require adequate fall protection. Workers who perform the physical tasks are in the worst position to demand it. The statute corrects that imbalance by imposing strict liability.
If you work in any of the high-hazard trades described here — ironwork, roofing, scaffolding, demolition, electrical, crane operation — and you have been injured in a fall or by a falling object, a Labor Law 240 analysis of your case is not optional. It is the first thing your attorney should do.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: I'm a roofer who fell from a residential roof. The homeowner says they are protected as a one-or-two-family homeowner. Is that true?
The homeowner's exemption in Labor Law 240 protects owners of one-and-two-family dwellings who "contract for but do not direct or control the work." This exemption is narrower than homeowners assume. Courts look carefully at the extent of owner involvement. If the homeowner was present regularly, directed how the work should be done, made decisions about materials and methods, or supervised the project, courts may find that they were directing or controlling the work — and the exemption does not apply. The exemption also does not apply if the homeowner was using the property for commercial purposes. A homeowner who owns a two-family rental property has been found to not qualify for the exemption in some cases. This issue is highly fact-specific and requires case-by-case evaluation.
Q: I work as an ironworker and was injured when a piece of steel fell and struck me. Is that a falling-object Labor Law 240 claim or just a negligence case?
It can be both. Labor Law 240(1) covers not only falls by workers but also workers struck by falling objects during construction. In Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Associates (96 N.Y.2d 259, 2001), the Court of Appeals held that Labor Law 240 applies to falling-object cases where the object needed to be secured against falling. For falling-object coverage, the courts look at whether the falling object was one that workers were not expected to keep their eyes on and avoid. A piece of steel being lifted by a crane that slips its rigging and falls — that is a 240(1) falling-object case. A tool dropped by a fellow worker does not necessarily qualify. The analysis turns on whether the object required securing and whether adequate securing devices were in place.
Q: I am a union ironworker. Do my union contract safety provisions affect my Labor Law 240 rights?
Not in a way that reduces them. Union collective bargaining agreements may establish safety standards that exceed OSHA minimums. Compliance with those standards might be relevant to a negligence analysis — it could support an argument that the contractor was not negligent under Labor Law 200 — but it does not affect the strict liability analysis under 240(1). The question under 240 is whether the safety device provided "proper protection," not whether the contractor met industry safety standards. A scaffold that met every union contract specification but still collapsed because it was improperly erected violates Labor Law 240 regardless of contractual compliance.
Q: I was seriously injured on a demolition site and the building partially collapsed. Can multiple defendants be sued?
Yes. In complex demolition accidents, potential defendants may include: the property owner, the general contractor, the demolition subcontractor, structural engineers who designed the demolition sequence, and potentially the owner of adjacent property if that property's condition contributed. Labor Law 240's non-delegable duty runs to owners and general contractors regardless of how many subcontractors were involved. Labor Law 200 negligence may attach to any party who had control over the unsafe condition or the means and methods of work. Product liability may be available if equipment failed. All of these claims should be investigated simultaneously, because the relevant evidence — the site condition, the demolition plan, witness locations — will change quickly.
Q: I am an undocumented worker in construction. Do these same laws protect me?
Yes. In Balbuena v. IDR Realty LLC (6 N.Y.3d 338, 2006), the New York Court of Appeals held that undocumented workers have the same rights under Labor Law 240 and 241 as documented workers. Immigration status is not a defense to a Labor Law claim. The Court's reasoning was direct: the statute was enacted to protect workers performing dangerous construction work, and that protection extends to all workers on covered sites regardless of their immigration status. Defendants may attempt to introduce immigration status to argue about lost wage calculations, but that argument also faces significant legal obstacles. Undocumented workers should consult with an attorney without fear that their immigration status will disqualify them from recovering full compensation.
Q: I work in the electrical trade and was electrocuted on a construction site. Is Labor Law 240 the right claim, or is there something better?
Electrocution claims typically fall under Labor Law 241(6) — the statute that imposes liability for violations of specific Industrial Code sections — rather than Labor Law 240, because electrocution is not a gravity-related injury. The relevant Industrial Code section depends on the specific hazard: 12 NYCRR 23-1.13 governs electrical hazards. OSHA standard 29 CFR 1926.400 series covers electrical safety in construction. Unlike Labor Law 240, Labor Law 241(6) is not absolute — comparative fault may reduce recovery. But Labor Law 200 (general negligence) is also available, and product liability may apply if equipment failed. An electrical injury case should be analyzed under all three Labor Law theories plus product liability simultaneously.
Call (888) 702-1581 for a free case review. There is no fee unless we recover.