Community Update

New York
Scaffold Law: Time for a facelift?

A
decades-long battle over New York’s Scaffold Law is heating up again.

Enacted
in 1885 as skyscrapers increasingly dotted city skylines, the law was intended
to protect construction workers from the growing dangers of working at greater
heights.

Supporters argue that the law is
essential to ensuring workers’ safety in some of the world’s most dangerous
jobs, especially those employed by contracting firms that cut corners to save
money. The law holds developers and contractors accountable for keeping job
sites safe.

But opponents have long argued the
law is outdated and prejudicial against contractors and property owners.

When a worker is injured, contractors
and owners are liable. The law says nothing about worker responsibility (though
the plaintiff still has to prove there was a violation of the law’s standards
and that the violation caused his or her injury). Even when an injured worker is 99% to
blame for the accident – such as being intoxicated or ignoring safety
regulations – the developer is 100% responsible for the costs.

And with awards
ranging from $3 million to $15 million in 2012, the stakes are only
getting higher.

Those mushrooming payouts, opponents argue,
are a goldmine for a growing cottage industry of attorneys. Huge settlements
have wasted millions of taxpayer dollars, pushed insurance
premiums through the roof, driven many smaller contractors out of business, and
cost thousands of jobs. They say the current situation makes it virtually
impossible for even
the most conscientious builders to defend themselves in court, and it severely hampers construction and the state’s economic growth.

Public
works projects feel the crunch too

The soaring cost of liability
insurance is also hindering the repair and construction of schools, bridges, roads,
and other crucial infrastructure, say critics of the law. The New York City
School Construction Authority recently reported that its liability insurance
costs for 2014 would be almost as high as they were for the years 2011 through
2013 combined.

Battle lines drawn

A lobby of contractors, property
owners, and insurers are renewing their campaign to have the law altered.
Pending legislation would
replace the standard of absolute liability with the more equitable
"comparative fault" standard in cases where an injured worker was intoxicated, violating
safety standards, or committing
a criminal act. The liability of the defendants, and thus the amount of
damages, would be reduced accordingly in these cases.

Supporters of the law – a lobby of
unions, workers’ advocates, and trial lawyers – are pushing back just as hard. They
argue that this amendment would reduce accountability on job sites and dilute the
incentive for property owners and contractors to take necessary safety
precautions. They also claim that these changes would have a disproportionate
impact on minority and immigrant laborers who are more likely to work for
nonunion companies that may not provide proper safety equipment and training.

But opponents point out that because
contractors and property owners could still face large payouts for settlements,
even if they were found only partly responsible for an accident, the amendment
wouldn’t eliminate the motivation to keep workplaces safe.

Is it time for a change?

New
York is the only state in the nation with this law, and the cost of
insuring construction projects in New York is as much as 10 times higher than in other states. With the future of the state’s construction industry at stake,
let’s hope both sides can find a solution.