In the first part of this post, the injured party was an electrician who was shocked.

The first part of this post dealt with an electrician who was receiving no Worker’s Compensation benefits. The prior post suggested that the injured worker should make a Worker’s Compensation claim. He should obtain medical and lost wage benefits through the uninsured employer’s fund. The second claim the injured worker has is a lawsuit. He would sue in Supreme Court against the job site owner and general contractor under the Labor Law.

If this accident occurred on a small repair of a one or two family home, none of the following information is applicable. This post applies to a commercial job site.

Third Party Claim

In this case, the injured worker can sue the general contractor and building owner for pain and suffering under Labor Law § 241(6). That particular statute places the burden for safety on a job site away from the injured worker’s employer to the general contractor and building owner. That means that the general contractor and building owner have a “non-delegable” duty to maintain a safe worksite.

In order to maintain an action under Labor Law § 241(6), the injured party must plead and prove that the owner and/or general contractor violated a specific regulation promulgated by the New York State Department of Labor. There are thousands of such safety regulations. But courts only hold certain regulations are specific. If the regulation in question outlines a general duty of safety, that regulation cannot be the basis for a Labor Law claim.

Claim Based on Violation of Safety Regulation

Over decades of caselaw in written decision from appellate authorities, the Courts have determined many regulations are specific enough to be the basis of a Labor Law claim. In this particular case, there are regulations that Courts have found to outline specific duties that, when violated, form the basis of a claim under the Labor Law. Some of those regulations are found in 12 NYCRR 23-1.13. General contractors, owners and employers must label and de-energize circuits during certain conditions.

This is not the end of the story. But this is the end of this post. There is no specific description of the accident. Depending upon what actually happened, there may be no case. But there could be case based upon the specific facts.

There are two important lessons. First, obtain Worker’s Compensation benefits as quickly as possible to obtain medical treatment and lost wage benefits. Second, if possible, bring a claim for pain and suffering under the Labor Law in Supreme Court.

By James Santner, Esq.

If you have questions about a similar situation, feel free to contact us. Consultations are free and there is no fee unless we win.