The law that applies to your claim
The specificity requirement
§241(6) is enforced through the Industrial Code, 12 NYCRR Part 23. A claim must rest on a provision that sets a concrete, positive command. Rules that merely restate a general duty of reasonable care will not support the claim — identifying the right provision is the case.
The rules cited most often
23-1.7 (overhead, falling, tripping and slipping hazards) · 23-1.15 (safety railings) · 23-1.21 (ladders) · 23-1.30 (illumination) · 23-2.1 (storage of material) · 23-4 (excavations) · 23-9 (power-operated equipment).
Comparative fault does apply here
Unlike §240(1), a §241(6) claim is subject to comparative negligence under CPLR §1411. Your own conduct reduces recovery rather than being irrelevant — an important practical difference between the two statutes.
What this covers that §240 does not
§240(1) reaches elevation hazards. Most construction injuries are not falls: tripping over debris and material left in a passageway, slipping on accumulated water or ice, working without adequate light, being caught in unguarded machinery, breathing what should have been ventilated.
These are §241(6) claims, and they succeed or fail on which Industrial Code provision is pleaded. A tripping claim tied to 23-1.7(e) is viable; the same facts pleaded as a general failure to maintain a safe site is not.
Applies to construction, excavation and demolition
The statute reaches areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed. That is narrower than §200’s general workplace duty and broader than §240’s elevation requirement.
As with §240, the duty is non-delegable: owners and general contractors are responsible whether or not they supervised.
Usually pleaded together
In practice these claims are pleaded alongside §240(1) and §200. If the elevation claim survives, it is usually the stronger one because comparative fault does not reduce it. If it does not, §241(6) is what remains — which is why the Industrial Code analysis needs doing at the outset, not after a §240 claim is dismissed.
How long you have to act
- Three years from the date of the accident for most negligence claims (CPLR §214).
- Two years for wrongful death (EPTL §5-4.1).
- 90 days to serve a notice of claim where a city, county, school district, transit authority or other public body is involved (General Municipal Law §50-e), with suit generally within one year and 90 days.
The 90-day rule is the one that quietly ends otherwise strong cases. If a public entity may be involved, that is the first thing to check — not the last.
What it costs
Nothing up front. These cases are handled on contingency: there is no fee unless we win, and the consultation is free. You will be told the percentage and how expenses are handled, in writing, before you sign anything.
Common questions
Is an OSHA violation enough?
No. OSHA violations are evidence of negligence but do not support a §241(6) claim by themselves. The claim requires a New York Industrial Code provision.
What if I tripped over material left in a walkway?
That is the classic 23-1.7(e) claim — passageways and working areas kept free of obstructions and tripping hazards.
Can I bring both §240 and §241 claims?
Yes, and usually you should. They cover different hazards and carry different consequences for comparative fault.
