Labor Law 240 Settlement Amounts in New York

What Labor Law 240 Does to Settlement Value

In most states, a construction worker injured in a fall has to prove the defendant was negligent and that their own negligence was less than the defendant's. Comparative fault reduces the award proportionally. A $1M case where the jury finds the worker 30% at fault becomes a $700,000 verdict.

New York Labor Law § 240(1) eliminates that calculation entirely for covered gravity-related injuries. Comparative fault is not a defense. If the safety device failed and the worker fell, liability is absolute. The only fight left is over how much the injuries are worth.

That shift has a measurable effect on settlement value. Insurance carriers price cases based on expected payout at trial. When liability is locked in, the expected payout rises — not because judges or juries are more generous, but because the defense cannot reduce the award through comparative fault arguments. A case that might resolve for $400K with comparative fault issues resolves for $1.2M without them.

Standard Negligence vs. Labor Law 240: A Real Comparison

How the Statute Actually Works

New York Labor Law § 240(1) was enacted in 1885 — it's one of the oldest worker protection statutes in the country. The Court of Appeals has interpreted it broadly. Key principles from case law:

• Non-delegable duty: The obligation to provide safe elevation equipment falls on the owner and GC. They cannot transfer this liability to a subcontractor by contract. Even if a sub was responsible for the scaffold, the owner and GC remain liable.
• Equipment must give proper protection: The test isn't whether some equipment was present — it's whether it was adequate for the elevation-related risk. A 4-foot guardrail on a 20-foot scaffold that can topple fails this test. (Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co., 81 NY2d 494, 1993).
• Gravity is the connecting thread: The statute covers falls from heights and objects falling onto workers. Both involve gravity. Both are covered. (Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Associates, 96 NY2d 259, 2001).
• Sole proximate cause defeats the claim: If the worker was the sole proximate cause of their own injury — they used a ladder improperly, refused to use available equipment, or created the entire hazard themselves — 240(1) doesn't apply. (Blake v. Neighborhood Housing Services of NYC, 1 NY3d 280, 2003). But "sole" means 100%. If the scaffold was also defective, this defense fails.

The Summary Judgment Inflection Point

Plaintiff's attorneys who practice construction injury law file early motions for summary judgment on liability when the facts support it. This is one of the most important strategic decisions in a 240(1) case, and it has a direct effect on settlement value.

Before summary judgment is decided, insurance adjusters price the case based on the probability that liability will be established at trial — say 70%. They offer 70% of the damages value. After summary judgment is granted, liability is decided. The offer jumps to reflect the full damages value because there's nothing left to fight about on the merits.

In practice, we've seen settlement offers increase by 40–80% after a successful summary judgment motion on 240(1) liability. That single motion is often worth more than any other step in the litigation.

Real Settlement and Verdict Ranges

These reflect reported outcomes in New York Labor Law 240 cases. Cases within the same severity category vary based on age, occupation, jurisdiction, and specific circumstances.

Verdicts are subject to post-trial motions and appeal, which can reduce them. Settlements represent final resolution without uncertainty. Most clients choose to settle rather than risk a lower verdict or years of appeals.

Labor Law 241(6) — The Safety Regulation Companion

Labor Law § 241(6) provides a separate but related protection: owners and GCs are liable for injuries caused by violations of specific provisions of the New York Industrial Code (12 NYCRR Part 23). Unlike 240(1), which is truly strict liability, 241(6) requires showing a specific code violation was a proximate cause of the injury.

But 241(6) covers a broader range of accidents than 240(1) — not just falls. Machinery accidents, trench collapses, chemical exposures, and equipment failures can all support 241(6) claims if the corresponding Industrial Code section was violated. Common violations that generate substantial settlements:

• § 23-1.7(b): Failure to provide covers or guardrails for hazardous floor openings
• § 23-1.7(e): Tripping hazards and inadequate housekeeping
• § 23-2.1: Improper storage of materials and equipment
• § 23-5.1: Scaffold planking and construction requirements
• § 23-9.2: Power-operated equipment operation requirements

Cases that support both 240(1) and 241(6) claims are the most valuable — the defendant faces multiple routes to liability and can't defeat both with a single defense argument.

Appellate Decisions That Changed Settlement Values

Court of Appeals and Appellate Division decisions directly affect how adjusters price cases. A few landmark rulings worth knowing:

• Nicometi v. Vineyards of Fredonia (2015): Affirmed that a worker using a six-foot A-frame ladder that slipped on a wet surface stated a valid 240(1) claim. Reinforced that the ladder was an inadequate safety device if it slipped.
• Wilinski v. 334 East 92nd Housing Development Fund (2011): Court of Appeals held that a fall from a height of only a few inches can still be a 240(1) violation if the plaintiff and the object causing the fall were at different elevations. Expanded coverage significantly.
• Auriemma v. Biltmore Theatre (2011): Appellate Division, First Dept. affirmed a $4.3M verdict for a worker who fell from a scaffold on a theater renovation project. Reinforced non-delegable duty concept.
• Blake v. Neighborhood Housing Services (2003): Court of Appeals established the "sole proximate cause" defense. Still the most important defense ruling in modern 240 jurisprudence.