Under New York's Scaffold Law (Labor Law 240), owners and general contractors are absolutely liable for fall and falling-object injuries when proper safety devices were not provided — and the worker's own fault generally does NOT reduce the recovery, which makes these among the most valuable construction claims in the state. This scaffold fall / Labor Law 240 settlement calculator estimates such a claim. Enter your medical bills, lost wages, future care, and injury severity below for a low-to-high range. Because Section 240(1) imposes absolute liability for gravity-related construction injuries, the calculator does not apply a comparative-fault reduction; it only discounts value if the defendant has a viable sole-proximate-cause defense.
Whether you fell from a scaffold, ladder, or roof, or were struck by a falling object on a New York construction site, the calculator below gives you a concrete figure, and the sections that follow explain absolute liability, the sole-proximate-cause defense, what the Scaffold Law covers, who is liable, and the workers' compensation interaction.
The scaffold fall / Labor Law 240 settlement calculator above uses a multiplier method but, critically, does not reduce the result for the worker's comparative fault, because Labor Law 240(1) imposes absolute liability. The formula is:
Economic Damages = Medical Bills + Lost Wages + Future Care & Lost Earning Capacity
Pain & Suffering = (Medical Bills + Future Care) × Severity Multiplier
Settlement Estimate = Economic + Pain & Suffering (no comparative-fault reduction)
The only discount the calculator applies is an optional reduction when the defendant can raise a viable sole proximate cause defense, which introduces litigation risk and lowers settlement value. Otherwise, the full damages stand. The result is reported as a central figure with a likely range. A workers' compensation lien may reduce the net amount you keep.
New York Labor Law Section 240(1), commonly called the Scaffold Law, is one of the most protective worker-safety statutes in the country. It requires owners and general contractors to provide proper safety devices — scaffolds, ladders, hoists, harnesses, and similar equipment — for construction work performed at a height. When a gravity-related accident (a fall from a height or being struck by a falling object) happens because a required safety device was missing or inadequate, the owner and general contractor are held absolutely liable. This is far stronger than an ordinary negligence claim, where the worker's own carelessness can reduce or bar recovery.
In most injury cases, comparative negligence reduces the award by the injured person's share of fault. Under Labor Law 240(1), when the statute applies and a safety-device failure caused the injury, the worker's comparative negligence is not a defense and does not reduce the recovery. This is the single most important feature of a Scaffold Law claim: a worker who was partly careless can still recover full damages, as long as the elevation-related safety failure was a cause of the accident. That is why the calculator omits the comparative-fault reduction that appears in ordinary injury calculators.
| Injury Severity | Multiplier | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Serious fracture | 2.5x | Broken bones, good recovery |
| Surgical / lasting | 3.5x | Surgery, permanent impairment |
| Severe | 4.5x | Spinal injury, multiple surgeries |
| Catastrophic | 5.0x+ | Paralysis, traumatic brain injury |
Suppose a worker falls from an unsecured scaffold that lacked guardrails and was not provided a harness, suffering a severe back injury requiring surgery. Medical bills to date are $180,000, past lost wages are $150,000, and future medical care and lost earning capacity total $300,000. The injury is severe and surgical (3.5x), and no viable sole-proximate-cause defense exists:
The calculator displays approximately $2,310,000 with a likely range of about $1,617,000 to $3,234,000. Even if the worker was partly careless, the absolute-liability rule means the value generally is not reduced — a key reason Scaffold Law cases are among the most valuable construction claims in New York.
The main way a defendant defeats or reduces a Labor Law 240(1) claim is the sole proximate cause defense. If the defendant proves that the worker's own actions were the only cause of the accident — for example, that adequate safety devices were available and the worker, for no good reason, chose not to use them — the claim can fail. This is a narrow defense and is often unsuccessful, but when it is genuinely viable it introduces risk that lowers settlement value, which is why the calculator includes it as an optional discount.
Labor Law 240(1) covers gravity-related hazards in construction, demolition, repair, painting, and cleaning: falls from scaffolds, ladders, roofs, and other heights, and injuries from falling objects. It does not cover injuries unrelated to elevation, such as tripping on a flat surface or being hurt by something other than a height-related hazard. Those injuries may instead fall under Labor Law 241(6), which addresses specific safety-regulation violations, or under general negligence — both of which do allow comparative-fault reductions, unlike Section 240(1).
Property owners and general contractors bear a non-delegable duty under the Scaffold Law, meaning they are liable even if a subcontractor controlled the worksite. This gives an injured worker access to well-insured defendants regardless of which company was directly in charge. Separately, the worker's own employer typically owes workers' compensation benefits. Injured workers usually pursue both: workers' compensation for immediate medical and wage benefits, and the Labor Law 240(1) lawsuit for full damages. The workers' compensation insurer often asserts a lien against the lawsuit recovery, which is negotiated as part of the settlement and affects the net amount the worker keeps.
Labor Law 240 cases often take one to several years, particularly when liability is contested or the injuries are catastrophic and require time to document fully. The absolute-liability standard can lead to summary judgment on liability in the worker's favor, which strengthens the negotiating position and can accelerate a settlement on damages. Cases involving a workers' compensation lien also require time to negotiate the lien so the net recovery is clear. Reaching maximum medical improvement clarifies the damages and often moves the case toward resolution.
Labor Law 240(1) addresses elevation-related hazards with absolute liability, while Labor Law 241(6) addresses a broader range of construction-site dangers and requires proving the violation of a specific, concrete safety regulation. Importantly, 241(6) claims allow comparative-fault reductions, unlike 240(1). Many construction-accident lawsuits plead both statutes plus common-law negligence, but the 240(1) claim — when it applies — is usually the most valuable because the worker's own fault does not reduce the recovery.
When an injured construction worker collects workers' compensation and also recovers in a Labor Law lawsuit, the workers' compensation insurer typically holds a lien to be repaid from the lawsuit proceeds for benefits it paid. New York law governs how the lien is calculated and reduced, including credit for litigation costs. Negotiating the lien down is an important part of maximizing the worker's net recovery, so the headline settlement figure and the amount the worker ultimately keeps can differ significantly.
Falls are consistently among the leading causes of death and serious injury in construction, and federal OSHA standards require fall protection — guardrails, safety nets, or personal fall-arrest systems — for work at height. While OSHA violations do not themselves create the Labor Law 240 claim, evidence that required fall protection was missing supports both the statutory claim and the narrative of an unsafe site. The overlap between OSHA fall-protection requirements and the Scaffold Law's safety-device mandate reinforces the worker's case.
New York Labor Law Section 240(1), known as the Scaffold Law, imposes absolute liability on owners and general contractors for gravity-related construction injuries — falls from heights and being struck by falling objects — when proper safety devices such as scaffolds, ladders, hoists, and harnesses were not provided or were inadequate. When the statute applies and a safety-device failure caused the injury, the worker's own negligence generally does not reduce the recovery, which makes Scaffold Law cases especially valuable.
The calculator adds your economic damages (medical bills, lost wages, and future medical and lost-earning costs), then estimates non-economic damages by multiplying the medical-and-future-care portion by a severity multiplier from about 2.5 to 5.0. Because Labor Law 240(1) imposes absolute liability, the calculator does not reduce the total for the worker's comparative fault. The result is a low-to-high settlement range reflecting the statute's strong protection for elevation-related injuries.
Generally no. When Labor Law 240(1) applies and an absence or failure of a required safety device was a cause of the injury, the worker's comparative negligence is not a defense and does not reduce the recovery. This is the key feature that distinguishes the Scaffold Law from ordinary negligence claims. The main exception is the 'sole proximate cause' defense, where the defendant proves the worker's own conduct was the only cause of the accident — for example, ignoring available, adequate safety equipment.
Labor Law 240(1) covers gravity-related (elevation-related) hazards: falls from scaffolds, ladders, roofs, and other heights, and injuries from objects falling from a height onto a worker. It applies to construction, demolition, repair, painting, cleaning, and similar work on a building or structure. It does not cover injuries unrelated to elevation, such as tripping on a flat surface, which fall under other provisions like Labor Law 241(6) or general negligence.
Property owners and general contractors (and their agents) are the parties held liable under Labor Law 240(1), even if they did not directly supervise the work, because the statute places a non-delegable duty on them to ensure proper safety devices are provided. This means an injured worker can recover from the owner or general contractor regardless of which subcontractor actually controlled the worksite, which broadens the pool of responsible, insured defendants.
Yes. Workers' compensation covers your medical care and a portion of lost wages on a no-fault basis from your employer, while a Labor Law 240(1) claim is a separate lawsuit against the property owner or general contractor that can recover pain and suffering and full damages. Injured construction workers in New York commonly pursue both; the workers' compensation insurer may assert a lien against the lawsuit recovery, which is typically negotiated as part of the settlement.
Compensatory damages for a physical injury, including the medical and pain-and-suffering components, are generally not taxable under IRS rules. Punitive damages and interest are taxable, and some lost-wage components can be taxable depending on how the claim is structured. Because a Labor Law 240 recovery may interact with a workers' compensation lien, confirm the tax treatment and the net-of-lien figure of your specific settlement with a tax professional and your attorney.