How Much Is a Scaffold Fall Worth in New York?

Why Scaffold Falls Settle High in New York

New York Labor Law § 240(1) imposes absolute liability on property owners and general contractors when a worker falls from a scaffold due to an inadequate safety device. The statute reads in part: owners and contractors "shall furnish or erect... scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection" to workers.

When a scaffold collapses, a plank gives way, or safety railings are absent and a worker falls — liability is established by the fact of the fall and the failure of the protection device. The injured worker doesn't have to prove the owner or GC was careless. They just have to show the device failed and caused the fall. That's what "strict liability" means in practice.

The practical consequence: insurance defense attorneys can't argue you "should have been more careful" or that you were "50% responsible." The only thing they can contest is how much your injuries are worth. That shift in focus — from liability to damages — tends to produce higher settlements.

Settlement Ranges by Injury Severity

These ranges reflect actual verdicts and settlements in New York State courts. Your specific case may fall above or below these ranges depending on the factors discussed below.

What Labor Law 240 Actually Requires

Section 240(1) covers "erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure." It doesn't cover every job at every location. The work has to qualify as construction or repair — not routine maintenance of a completed building.

But when it does apply, courts have held that the statute covers:

• Scaffold plank failures or collapses
• Falls from scaffolding with inadequate railings (29 CFR 1926.451 requires guardrails at 10 feet)
• Scaffold structures that tip, shift, or collapse due to inadequate bracing
• Falls through unsecured scaffold openings
• Injuries from swing stages, suspended scaffolds, and aerial lifts
• Objects falling from scaffolds onto workers below (gravity-related coverage)

The plaintiff must show the protective device (the scaffold) failed to give "proper protection" — essentially, that the injury was proximately caused by that failure. This is usually straightforward when the scaffold collapses or the worker falls off due to an absence of guardrails.

Five Factors That Move the Number

Height of the Fall

A fall from 4 feet and a fall from 40 feet are both covered by Labor Law 240 — but they don't settle for the same amount. Higher falls produce more severe injuries. Falls from 20+ feet that don't kill the worker often produce spinal cord or severe orthopedic injuries with permanent disability. Those cases are at the high end of the range.

Type of Scaffold and Safety Violations

Industrial Code § 23-5.1 requires scaffold planking to be sound, properly overlapped, and secured. § 23-5.18 governs hanging scaffolds. When the investigation shows specific code violations — no mid-rail, inadequate toe boards, improper plank thickness — it strengthens both the 240(1) and 241(6) claims simultaneously, raising the settlement ceiling.

The Worker's Age and Earnings

Future lost wages are a multiplier. A 30-year-old carpenter with permanent disability has 30+ working years ahead. At $110,000/year (including benefits), that's $3.3M in future lost earnings before present-value discounting. A 55-year-old with the same injury has fewer working years, so the lost-wage number is smaller — but the case is still highly valuable.

Whether Summary Judgment Was Obtained

When a plaintiff wins a pre-trial motion for summary judgment on liability under 240(1), the case value increases dramatically. The defense can no longer contest who's at fault — only how much is owed. Settlements routinely jump 30–50% after summary judgment is granted. This is one reason why retaining an attorney who actually litigates 240 motions — rather than one who just settles early — matters.

The Defendants' Insurance Coverage

A verdict against an uninsured or underinsured defendant may be uncollectable. Before filing, we identify all potentially liable parties — GC, subcontractors, property owner, construction manager — and verify coverage. Large commercial projects typically carry $5–10M+ in general liability coverage. Residential projects may carry far less. The available insurance determines the practical ceiling.

When the Defense Fights Back

Two common defenses in scaffold fall cases under 240(1):

The recalcitrant worker defense: Under Cahill v. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (1 NY3d 35, 2003), a defendant can defeat 240(1) liability if they prove the worker was the sole proximate cause of their own injury by deliberately disregarding a direct instruction to use available safety equipment. This is a narrow exception — "sole proximate cause" means the defense fails entirely if the scaffold itself was defective. But it's the primary weapon insurers use to try to defeat summary judgment.

Lack of coverage: Defendants sometimes argue the work doesn't qualify as "construction or repair" under 240(1) — that it was routine maintenance excluded from coverage. Courts have addressed this extensively: work that involves structural alteration, renovation, or building construction is covered. Replacing a light bulb is not. Most scaffold work on active construction projects clearly qualifies.