Labor Law §240 Reform in 2026:
Where the New York Scaffold Law Stands and What's Coming Next

New York Labor Law §240(1) — colloquially called the Scaffold Law — imposes absolute (strict) liability on property owners and general contractors when a construction worker is injured by a gravity-related risk such as a fall from height or a falling object. The statute requires that scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes and other devices be 'so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection' to workers. Because the duty is non-delegable and the liability is absolute, comparative negligence by the worker is not a defense and the worker need not prove negligence — only that a §240 device was absent, defective, or inadequate for the gravity-related task.

As of May 2026, no §240 amendment has passed. Reform attempts are part of a broader Hochul administration tort-reform package that already included a proposed 50% comparative-negligence bar (CPLR §1411) and joint-and-several liability changes (CPLR §1601). Industry groups — the New York Building Congress, the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York, and several real-estate trade associations — have pushed for a §240 comparative-negligence carve-out for years, citing Florida HB 837 (2023) as a model. The plaintiffs' bar has historically defeated each iteration. We track the legislative docket and will update this page when meaningful movement occurs.

Gravity-related injuries are the heart of §240 — typically falls from a height (scaffolding, ladders, roofs, openings, elevation differentials) or injuries from falling objects that should have been secured. The Court of Appeals has refined the test in Runner v. New York Stock Exchange (gravity must be a substantial factor), Wilinski v. 334 East 92nd Housing (object need not fall from a great height if not properly secured), and Vislocky v. City of New York (the §240 device must have been the proximate cause of the failure, not a generic workplace condition). If gravity contributed to the injury and a §240 safety device was absent or inadequate, you likely have a §240 claim.

§240 imposes non-delegable duties on owners, general contractors, and 'agents' (typically construction managers with authority to supervise and control the work). It does NOT impose liability on the plaintiff's own direct employer for the same injury (the workers' compensation bar applies there) — but the worker can sue the owner and GC for the same accident, and those defendants can implead the employer for indemnification under Workers' Comp Law §11 if the worker sustained a 'grave injury.' Three statutory exemptions: owners of one- and two-family dwellings who do not direct or control the work; certain owners who are themselves the workers; and routine maintenance unrelated to construction, demolition, or repair.

§240(1) is absolute liability for gravity-related risks where a covered safety device failed. §241(6) imposes a non-delegable duty to comply with specific Industrial Code regulations (12 NYCRR Part 23) — but is NOT absolute; comparative negligence applies. §200 is a codification of common-law negligence for general workplace dangers — requires the defendant to have actually directed or controlled the work, or to have had actual/constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Most New York construction-accident lawsuits plead all three; §240 is the strongest claim when the facts fit because comparative negligence is eliminated.

Florida HB 837 (signed March 2023) was the most consequential tort-reform statute of the past decade. It reduced the statute of limitations for negligence from 4 years to 2; replaced pure comparative negligence with a 51% bar (>50% at fault = no recovery); modified the collateral source rule; and limited medical-bill admissibility to amounts actually paid. Insurance carriers immediately moved to reduce reserves on Florida claims, and case values fell substantially. Several NY industry groups have cited HB 837 as the model they want for New York §240 and CPLR §1411. To date, NY Governor Hochul has proposed a 50% bar but not a §240 carve-out; the two reforms have always been considered separately.

It would compress them significantly. Today, §240 is the most valuable liability theory in New York PI law because absolute liability eliminates the most common defense — that the worker was partially at fault. Practitioners commonly settle §240 cases at policy limits because trial risk on the liability side is near zero. If §240 were amended to allow comparative-negligence reduction (the most-floated reform), defendants would have an incentive to put the worker's own conduct in front of a jury and discount settlements accordingly. Range estimates depend on the specific carve-out — a 'sole proximate cause' codification would have modest impact, while a full comparative-negligence overlay would compress mean settlement values by 20–40% in our practitioner experience.

Under current law, no — §240 is absolute liability, and comparative negligence does not reduce recovery on a §240 cause of action even though it can reduce §241(6) and §200 recoveries. If the proposed 50% bar to CPLR §1411 is enacted without a §240 exemption written into the statute or its implementing legislation, the question of whether the bar reaches §240 will be tested in litigation. Most plaintiffs' counsel argue that §240's absolute liability framework is incompatible with a comparative-fault bar; defendants will argue the new 50% rule applies to all liability theories. Watch the bill text closely.

Sometimes — and this is where the 'sole proximate cause' defense lives. If the worker's own conduct (refusing to use a provided harness, ignoring a direct safety order, drinking on the job) was the SOLE proximate cause of the fall, §240 absolute liability does not apply — because the statute requires the absence or inadequacy of a §240 device to have caused the injury. But if any §240 device was absent or inadequate (including a missing safety line, broken ladder, unsecured scaffold), the worker's own conduct does not bar recovery; it is comparative negligence which §240 does not recognize. The defense is narrow and fact-intensive.

Three years from the date of injury under CPLR §214 for personal injury, and two years for wrongful death under EPTL §5-4.1. If a government entity (a municipality, the State of New York, the Port Authority, the MTA/LIRR) owns the property or directed the work, a Notice of Claim must be filed within 90 days under GML §50-e (or shorter for specific authorities). Notice of Claim deadlines are absolute. Beyond statutory deadlines, the evidence-preservation window is far shorter: photographs, scaffold and equipment inspection records, safety meeting minutes, and surveillance footage routinely disappear within 30–90 days. Call us immediately after a construction accident — the evidence that proves §240 liability must be preserved right now.