Proponents of NY’s antiquated Scaffold Law purport that the law makes for safer workplaces. Well, if that’s true, then why is it only height-related claims that are covered under the law? That’s because all workers, including those injured by height-related incidents are covered by Workers Compensation which is based upon the theory of strict liability for employee injuries except that the Workers Compensation law provides a direct avenue to payments without the need to sue. There are also other avenues for injured workers to sue under common law for their injuries. Attorneys like the antiquated strict liability law, though, because they don’t have to make a case for payment, but rather they only have to argue for the amount of recompense and not prove negligence. How convenient for them. Moreover, the law deprives the defendants of their right to defend themselves in a court of law, which could be construed to be unconstitutional. It is also costly for the rest of us to have to provide a special benefit for a relatively small segment of the working population who are treated differently than everyone else injured while performing their respective jobs. This law has to go because it is costing the people of New York a lot of money and makes the state uncompetitive in a highly competitive world marketplace while providing a specialized benefit to relatively few people and their attorneys when there is another avenue for compensation that didn’t exist when this law was originally passed.
I have repeatedly had insured’s building multi-million dollar homes using NY state contractors who only carry $1 million in liability insurance because it’s too expensive to get more. In one case, I called a construction company in NJ who specializes in multi-million dollar homes, just to compare, and was told by the owner that they carry upwards of $10-15 million in liability insurance. One of my clients who’s building a $4 million home in the Hamptons asked their contractor, by request of their insurance company, to increase their liability from $1 mil to $4 mil and they were told it would cost $60,000 in additional premium and that whole cost would be passed on to my client. This law is not only putting our clients at risk, but it’s also putting these contractors at great risk and has the potential to financially bankrupt some companies. This needs to be changed immediately.
Lawyers are happy – they give big bucks to political campaigns – Pols are happy – do you think there is any concern for the rest of us? I think not. I’m not a cynic, I’m a realist.
Proponents of NY’s antiquated Scaffold Law purport that the law makes for safer workplaces. Well, if that’s true, then why is it only height-related claims that are covered under the law? That’s because all workers, including those injured by height-related incidents are covered by Workers Compensation which is based upon the theory of strict liability for employee injuries except that the Workers Compensation law provides a direct avenue to payments without the need to sue. There are also other avenues for injured workers to sue under common law for their injuries. Attorneys like the antiquated strict liability law, though, because they don’t have to make a case for payment, but rather they only have to argue for the amount of recompense and not prove negligence. How convenient for them. Moreover, the law deprives the defendants of their right to defend themselves in a court of law, which could be construed to be unconstitutional. It is also costly for the rest of us to have to provide a special benefit for a relatively small segment of the working population who are treated differently than everyone else injured while performing their respective jobs. This law has to go because it is costing the people of New York a lot of money and makes the state uncompetitive in a highly competitive world marketplace while providing a specialized benefit to relatively few people and their attorneys when there is another avenue for compensation that didn’t exist when this law was originally passed.
I have repeatedly had insured’s building multi-million dollar homes using NY state contractors who only carry $1 million in liability insurance because it’s too expensive to get more. In one case, I called a construction company in NJ who specializes in multi-million dollar homes, just to compare, and was told by the owner that they carry upwards of $10-15 million in liability insurance. One of my clients who’s building a $4 million home in the Hamptons asked their contractor, by request of their insurance company, to increase their liability from $1 mil to $4 mil and they were told it would cost $60,000 in additional premium and that whole cost would be passed on to my client. This law is not only putting our clients at risk, but it’s also putting these contractors at great risk and has the potential to financially bankrupt some companies. This needs to be changed immediately.
Lawyers are happy – they give big bucks to political campaigns – Pols are happy – do you think there is any concern for the rest of us? I think not. I’m not a cynic, I’m a realist.
What New York needs is a limit on how much money lawyers can take as fees for any given liability or workplace injury case.