The New York Court of Appeals recently issued an important decision that should be welcomed by owners, general contractors, and trade contractors alike regarding Labor Law Section 241(6), which imposes a nondelegable duty on owners, general contractors, and their agents to comply with specific safety regulations. In Mann v. Mezuyon, LLC, the Court reaffirmed a fundamental principle governing Labor Law Section 241(6): only Industrial Code provisions containing sufficiently specific safety requirements can serve as a basis for liability. General safety directives and broad prohibitions are not enough.
For electrical contractors, the decision provides another reminder that not every alleged Industrial Code violation creates exposure under Labor Law Section 241(6). Instead, courts will continue to closely scrutinize whether the cited regulation contains concrete, objective requirements capable of supporting a nondelegable statutory duty.
The Accident and Procedural History
The case arose from an excavation and drilling project in Manhattan where multiple drilling rigs and excavators were operating simultaneously. The plaintiff was assisting in repairs to a drilling rig when he allegedly was struck by the rear of an excavator and knocked to the ground. The plaintiff asserted multiple claims under the Labor Law and common-law negligence.
After motion practice, the plaintiff's remaining Labor Law Section 241(6) claim was based on alleged violations of Industrial Code Section 23-4.2(k), a regulation contained within the excavation provisions of the Industrial Code. Both lower courts dismissed the claim, and the Court of Appeals affirmed those lower courts' decisions.
The Court's Holding
The sole issue before the Court of Appeals was whether Industrial Code Section 23-4.2(k) was sufficiently specific to support liability under Labor Law Section 241(6). The Court answered that question with a clear "no."
The Court explained that while Labor Law Section 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners and contractors to comply with specific regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of Labor, not every Industrial Code provision qualifies. To support a Section 241(6) claim, the regulation must contain concrete specifications or positive commands rather than merely expressing general safety principles.
According to the Court, Industrial Code Section 23-4.2(k) stated only a broad prohibition and did not prescribe specific conduct or objective safety requirements. Because the regulation lacked sufficiently detailed directives, it could not serve as a predicate for Section 241(6) liability. The Court therefore affirmed dismissal of the claim.
Why the Decision Matters
This decision has implications across all construction trades. Labor Law Section 241(6) remains one of the most frequently asserted causes of action in New York construction accident litigation. Unlike Labor Law Section 200 and common-law negligence claims, Section 241(6) imposes a statutory duty that cannot be delegated away. Plaintiffs routinely attempt to identify Industrial Code provisions that can be used as predicates for liability.
The practical battle in many Section 241(6) cases is not whether an accident occurred, but whether the Industrial Code section cited by the plaintiff is sufficiently specific. Mann reinforces that courts will continue to distinguish between regulations containing specific and measurable requirements and regulations expressing only generalized safety goals. Only the former may support a Labor Law Section 241(6) claim. Following Mann, contractors may have stronger grounds to seek dismissal of claims predicated upon broadly worded regulations that lack concrete specifications, which could help narrow litigation, reduce settlement values, and, hopefully, keep insurance premiums at a palatable rate.
The Court's analysis centered on the wording of the Industrial Code provision itself. The distinction between a viable and nonviable Section 241(6) claim often depends upon whether the regulation contains objective directives such as required clearances, mandatory guarding requirements, specific distances or dimensions, defined methods of operation, or particular equipment requirements.
By contrast, provisions that merely require work to be performed safely or prohibit dangerous conditions without further specification may not support Section 241(6) liability.
Safety Compliance Still Matters
Contractors should not interpret Mann as reducing the importance of safety compliance. The decision addresses only whether a particular regulation may serve as a statutory predicate under Labor Law Section 241(6). As you are all aware, after a worksite incident, claims can be brought under a number of theories, including scaffold law, common-law negligence, contractual indemnification, common-law indemnification, OSHA citations, contractual default, and more. Safety should always be of utmost concern to contractors.