Construction Worker Injury: New York's Commitment to Protect Construction Workers
Powers & Santola · Construction Accident and Injury Lawyers
Construction Worker Injury in New York
Workers performing construction, demolition and excavation work are exposed to hazardous conditions which are unique to the building trades. Construction projects, large or small, are traditionally awarded to the lowest bidders. Once awarded a contract, a successful bidder must then complete the work within the terms of the contract and hope to make a profit.
From an economic point of view, this system promotes efficiency and the development of new building techniques, thereby, theoretically speaking, reducing the cost of the project for the owner. However, it can also lead to cutting corners, especially where safety is involved.
If you suffered a serious injury in a construction accident in New York, the attorneys of Powers & Santola can offer you knowledgeable legal advice and experienced representation in pursuit of full and fair financial compensation and the benefits you may be entitled to. Please contact us today.
Safety Shortcuts and Construction Worker Injury
Unlike compromises in materials or workmanship, taking short cuts in safety measures does not show up in the final product. Recognizing that workers in the construction industry need special protection from the hazards they face on a daily basis, and that the average worker has no control over safety practices on the job site, New York State decided long ago that laws were needed in order to guarantee workers a safe place to work.
Work Site Safety in New York State
Starting in 1885, New York State took a leading role in making those in control of safety on the work site responsible for injuries caused by unsafe work practices. Over the next 100 years, the state Legislature continued to expand these laws. Additional categories of work were added to the traditional forms of construction work covered by these laws and the owners of the land upon which the work is performed, together with the contractors they hired, were made absolutely responsible for any injuries or death of a worker caused by a violation of these laws. This ultimate responsibility, or legal liability, is not based upon fault or negligence of the owner or their contractors. The injured worker only has to show that the statute was not followed and, as a result, injury or death to the worker occurred.
This duty may be onerous, yet, it is one that the Legislature deemed necessary due to the exceptional dangers that are inherent in constructing or demolishing buildings or in doing excavation work in connection therewith. "Moreover, the statute now serves the salutary purpose of inducing owners and contractors to assure that only financially responsible and safety-conscious subcontractors are engaged so that a high standard of care might be maintained throughout the entire construction site." Allen v. Cloutier, 44 NY2d 290.
New York and Illinois were the only two states in the country with this type of law until 1995, when Illinois repealed their law under pressure from special interest groups. In a recent study, the Center for Justice and Democracy concluded that ever since Illinois repealed its construction safety statute, construction fatalities and injuries have significantly increased, while other workplace incidents are on the decline. This is a confirmation that these strict safety statutes do work to minimize accidents on the work site and that New York State has a successful approach to ensuring that workers will be given a safe place to work.
These laws are printed in Volume 30 of the Consolidated Laws of New York. That volume of laws covers all forms of laws that deal with ever labor issue ranging from minimum age requirements to minimum wages and everything in between that governs workers' rights and employers' obligations. These laws, also called statutes, are referred to by their section numbers and volume title. The statutes dealing with the safe place to work laws are Sections 240, 241, and 241-a of the Labor Law. Most people think of labor unions when they hear the phrase labor Law, but in the field of personal injury law, when we speak of section 240 of the Labor Law we are referring to a specific law that deals with worker's safety, which applies to all workers, whether they are union or non-union workers.
Construction Worker Injury and Workers' Compensation
Workers' compensation benefits are not affected by these statutes. Workers are allowed to collect the normal wages and medical benefits that are provided for under the compensation system and may still bring a lawsuit to recover all losses that are not provided for by workers' compensation. The importance of this right becomes obvious when we consider the worker who sustains a serious injury that permanently prevents him or her from ever working again in the construction field. Currently, workers' compensation benefits allow for a maximum payment of $400.00 per week for lost wages, despite the fact that the injured worker may have been earning in excess of $1,000.00 per week, in addition to valuable fringe benefits such as medical insurance, pension benefits, contributions to FICA, social security, retirement plans, life and disability insurance. Over a lifetime, the difference between what worker's compensation will pay and what the real losses to a worker are can easily exceed $1 million dollars. Most importantly, Worker's Compensation does not include any monetary benefits for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life or the effects the disability has on a person's over all quality of life. These losses can only be recovered by bringing a lawsuit.
Construction Worker Injury and Vicarious Liability
In exchange for purchasing worker's compensation insurance for their employees, the injured worker's employer is given immunity from all personal injury law suits brought directly by injured workers against them. New York's Labor Law statutes do not alter this immunity from direct suits by employees; however, these safety statutes do create a path around the prohibition of such lawsuits. This is done by making "All contractors and owners and their agents" liable for violations of the statutes, even if violation was due to someone else's fault. This is called vicarious liability. Another example of vicarious liability is the situation where the law holds the owner of a car responsible for the negligent acts of a driver who was given permission to use the vehicle. Likewise, the owner and their contractors are held vicariously responsible to the worker for acts committed by someone else. In turn the owners and contractors who are vicariously liable for the acts of someone else may sometimes recover its losses from the party that actually caused the act that gave rise to the injury. This is called a defendant's right of contribution or indemnification. Contribution and indemnification rights do not add to or diminish the worker's right to recover against their full loses from the owner or contractor.
Owner and Contractor Liability
Another distinct benefit of these safety statutes is that owners and contractors cannot avoid their responsibility to the worker by assigning or "delegating" the duty to comply with the statute to another. With out these statutes owners and contractors under our Common Law System are allowed to avoid all responsibility by hiring someone else, called an independent contractor, to perform the actual work. By the simple act of hiring another person or company to do the work, owners and contractors, were free from all responsibilities for safety on the job site. The labor law statutes change the Common Law by making all owners and their contractors liable to the injured worker whether or not they control the work or the construction project itself. Thus, when a landlord leases property to a tenant who then hires a contractor to build on the property without the knowledge or consent of the owner-landlord, the landlord will still be vicariously liable to the injured worker and cannot use the excuse that he did nothing wrong or that he never gave the tenant permission to hire a contractor or even that he had no knowledge the work was taking place. While this may seem unfair, it is not. The landlord may seek to recover his contribution or indemnification rights against the tenant and or the contractor that was hired, even if the contractor is the injured worker's employer.
Absolute Liability
Finally, there is the advantage of absolute liability that is provided for under sections 240, 241(1) through (5) and 241-a. "Absolute liability" means that comparative negligence is not a defense that may be used by owners or contractors to avoid responsibility for an accident that results in injuries or death. They may not shift the blame for causing an injury to the injured worker or to any other party. The best way to explain the meaning of this is in practical terms is to refer to the facts which occurred in Himes v. New York Telephone Co., 46 N.Y.2d 132, a case that was decided by our highest court in 1978. Mr. Haimes, a self-employed painter, was hired by the telephone company to paint the outside of its building. Under the terms of the contract, Mr. Haimes was to use his own equipment and supply all labor on the job. After setting up his own extension ladder, he climbed to the top and began to paint. Because the ladder was not tied off at the top as it should have been, it began to slip across the front of the building, causing Mr. Haimes to fall off. The telephone company argued that it should not be responsible for Mr. Haimes' injury, since, it hired him to do the work, and to follow all applicable laws. Moreover, the phone company pointed out that it had no control over how he did the work or what equipment he used. Further, the telephone company argued that if it was held liable, it should be permitted to collect back from the plaintiff its rights of contribution and indemnification because Mr. Haimes was the actual party who caused the accident. The Court did not agree. The telephone company was held liable to Mr. Haimes for all of the losses he sustained and the phone company was not permitted to be reimbursed by the plaintiff despite the fact that it was Mr. Haimes himself who was hired to properly erect and tie off the ladder.
Opponents to the Law
Opponents of these statutes claim that they are unfair because they allow the worker to recover all his or her losses even when the worker is partially at fault. The Legislature and the courts of New York, however, recognize that these "safe place to work" statutes force the parties who have ultimate control over the project, to guarantee safety in the work place, and do not permit them to escape liability by blaming the worker or someone else. Also, when serious work accidents occur, there is a tremendous cost to society through government sponsored programs such as Social Security Disability, Medicare and Medicaid payments. In addition these costs contribute to higher insurance premiums for worker's compensation, health and disability insurance. Without these statutes, all New York residents would bear the true cost of the injury, even though we have absolutely nothing to do with the project, while the owners and contractors receive all the benefit from having the project completed at the lowest possible price. These statutes place the ultimate cost for these injuries upon the parties who stand to benefit the most from the work, the owners and contractors.
Section 240 of the Labor Law requires that every worker who is expected to work at an elevated work site, or who is exposed to the danger of being struck from a falling object, must be given adequate safety devices to prevent an accident from occurring. If no safety devices are provided, or if the available devices collapse or otherwise fail, the owners and contractors will be held liable. In fact, in most instances where the accident occurs due to the failure to provide a safety device, or where the device provided fails to protect against the injury, the court will grant the injured worker a judgment against the owner or contractor upon a motion and there will be no need to go to trial.
Section 240 gives the injured worker another important advantage. It applies not just to buildings, but to any type of manmade structure. New York courts have applied the statute to work performed on bridges, water towers, airplanes, utility poles and their lines, boats, locomotives, satellite dishes, roads, piers, large pieces of machinery such as conveyor belts, boilers, air-handling units and even landfills and grave sites. Additionally, the worker need not be employed to build or demolish the building or structure, since, section 240 applies to all forms of "repair, alteration, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure". Therefore, the telephone company worker who falls from a ladder while repairing a phone line, the HVAC worker replacing an air conditioning unit on the roof of a building, the window washer for a commercial building, the maintenance worker who is installing a wall clock, and the cleaning crew for any non-residential building or structure, are all covered under section 240.
Exemptions
There are some exemptions from liability granted by these statutes. Notably, owners of one- or two-family residences, engineers, architects and landscape architects are granted immunity from liability, but, only under circumstances where they do not exercise any direction or control over the work. Otherwise, all types of owners - whether they are owners who have title to the property (even if they granted an easement to use the property); tenants; parties who will become owners under a contract of sale; and any other party who initiates the project or work giving rise to the injury - are absolutely responsible for injuries to workers.
Contact Powers & Santola today to schedule a free consultation with an experienced personal injury lawyer regarding any serious or fatal car accident in upstate New York.
