July 21, 2025
If your client suffered a fall on a job site—or you're defending a contractor accused of violating Labor Law 240(1)—you've likely heard the term "sole proximate cause." It's one of the most misunderstood defenses in New York labor law cases. Despite being raised frequently, it rarely succeeds. In this blog, we’ll explain why New York courts almost never side with defendants on this issue and what you need to know if it comes up in your case.
Under New York Labor Law 240(1), also known as the "Scaffold Law," property owners and contractors are strictly liable for injuries caused by gravity-related hazards—like falls from ladders or scaffolding. The law is highly protective of workers.
To avoid liability, a defendant might argue that the worker’s own actions were the sole reason the accident happened. This is the “sole proximate cause” defense. But for the defense to succeed, four things must be true:
1. An adequate safety device was available.
2. The worker knew that the safety device was available, and they were expected to use it.
3. The worker chose not to use the equipment for no good reason.
4. The worker would not have been injured had they not chosen to use the device they used to perform the work.
If any one of those elements is missing, the defense fails (see Cahill v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 NY3d 35 [2004]).
Courts Demand Clear, Strong Proof
The burden of proof is high. Defendants must show all four elements clearly—usually through documentation, testimony, and worksite procedures. If the evidence is vague or inconsistent, courts side with the injured worker (see Blake v Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of New York City, 1 NY3d 280 [2003]).
This is where working with appellate counsel early in the litigation can make a difference. Appellate lawyers can help frame key legal arguments during motion practice, especially when summary judgment is on the line. They can help ensure the trial record is clear and complete, which is critical for either supporting or defeating this defense on appeal.
Misuse of Equipment Doesn’t Count
Even if a worker uses a ladder improperly, that doesn’t prove they were the sole cause of the accident. Courts regularly reject these arguments as thinly veiled claims of comparative negligence—which isn’t a valid defense under Section 240(1) (see Biaca-Neto v Boston Rd. II Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 34 NY3d 1166 [2020]). Many times this argument fails because an alternative safety device was not available, and the sole proximate cause defense cannot be invoked where no adequate safety devices are provided (see Stolt v General Foods. Corp., 81 NY2d 918 [1993]).
Prior Safety Instructions Aren’t Always Enough
Defendants often argue that workers ignored previous safety instructions. But unless those instructions were specific and closely tied to the task at hand, the defense usually fails. Courts have ruled that general safety reminders given days or weeks before an accident don’t meet the standard (see Barreto v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 25 NY3d 426 [2015]).
In New York Labor Law 240(1) cases, the sole proximate cause defense is rarely successful. Courts consistently hold employers and property owners to a high standard when it comes to worker safety (see Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 NY2d 555