Last reviewed: August 12, 2026 by Jacob Oresky, Esq.
A construction worker obtained a $6.5 million settlement after a hand tool fell roughly 20 stories and struck the worker’s hard hat at a Bronx construction site in New York. The worker, a union laborer working at ground level, sustained a head injury along with spine, shoulder, and nerve injuries when the tool dropped from an elevated work area above. The settlement was reached after the Court granted the worker summary judgment on liability under New York Labor Law § 240(1).
Case Facts
| Outcome | $6,500,000 Settlement |
|---|---|
| Resolution | Pre-Trial Settlement |
| Mechanism | Falling Object (Dropped Hand Tool) |
| Statute | New York Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 |
| Court | Bronx County Supreme Court |
| Year | 2026 Settlement |
| Attorneys | Oresky & Associates, PLLC |
Falling Object — How the Accident Happened
The $6.5 million falling object case arose from a hand tool that fell from a great height at an active Bronx construction site. The injured worker, a union laborer, was performing his duties at ground level when a tool dropped by another worker positioned roughly 20 stories above fell and struck the hard hat the worker was wearing. The impact was forceful enough to dent the hard hat and knock the worker to the ground.
The worker lost consciousness at the scene and was taken to a hospital for emergency treatment. Because the object came from an elevated portion of the project and was not secured against falling, the event fell squarely within the category of gravity-related construction hazards that New York’s Labor Law is designed to prevent. The tool traveled the full height of the building before reaching the ground-level work area where the laborer stood.
Why New York Labor Law § 240(1) Applied — Falling-Object Protection
Labor Law § 240(1) and the Falling-Object Hazard
New York Labor Law § 240(1) requires owners and contractors to furnish and secure proper protection for workers exposed to elevation-related risks, including objects that must be secured against falling. In the $6.5 million falling object case, a tool fell approximately 20 stories and struck the hard hat of a ground-level worker who had no protection from that overhead hazard. The Court granted the worker summary judgment on liability under § 240(1), a ruling that establishes the defendants’ responsibility and removes comparative fault as a defense to the statutory claim.
Labor Law § 241(6), § 200, and Common-Law Negligence
The claim was also supported by Labor Law § 241(6), which imposes a non-delegable duty on owners and contractors to comply with specific safety regulations under the Industrial Code governing construction operations, and by Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, which address the duty to maintain a reasonably safe worksite. Together these theories reinforced that the parties responsible for the site bore legal responsibility for the falling-object hazard that injured the worker.
The same falling-object protection drove the recovery in our $8.75 million falling beam settlement, where a worker was struck by a beam that fell at a construction site.
The $6.5 Million Settlement — How the Recovery Was Reached
After the worker was granted summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1), the case turned on the extent of the injuries and their effect on the worker’s life and career. The parties developed the medical and vocational evidence and resolved the matter through mediation before trial, with the defendants agreeing to a $6.5 million settlement. Securing the liability ruling before resolution gave the injured worker significant leverage in negotiating the recovery.
The case was handled by Oresky & Associates, PLLC, which developed the liability record, marshaled the medical proof, and negotiated the settlement on the worker’s behalf.
Falling-object injuries at Bronx construction sites turn on the same protective duties from one job to the next. For a broader discussion see our New York construction accident practice pages, our Bronx construction accident lawyers and our Bronx debris accident lawyers.
Injuries Sustained by the Construction Worker
The construction worker sustained a head injury with a loss of consciousness and a scalp laceration that required closure at the hospital. Imaging and neurological testing confirmed head injuries, along with cervical and lumbar spine injuries, including disc herniations with nerve involvement.
About the Attorneys Who Handled This Case
This case was handled by Jacob Oresky, Esq., and Steven Labell, Esq.
Jacob Oresky is the founder and managing attorney of Oresky & Associates, PLLC, and has spent decades representing injured construction workers and other accident victims throughout New York. His practice focuses on personal injury and construction and Labor Law claims.
Steven Labell is a personal injury attorney at Oresky & Associates, PLLC, who represents injured clients in serious injury and construction accident matters throughout New York.
Related Construction Accident Verdicts and Settlements
$8.75 Million Settlement — Worker Struck by a Falling Beam
A construction worker recovered $8.75 million after being struck by a falling beam at a New York construction site, another falling-object case governed by New York’s Labor Law.
$23 Million Verdict — Bronx Scaffold Collapse
Two construction workers obtained a $23 million verdict after a scaffold collapse under New York Labor Law § 240(1), a leading example of the firm’s elevation-related construction work.
$6 Million Settlement — Bronx Ladder Fall
A construction worker recovered $6 million after suffering injuries in a Bronx ladder fall on a construction site, another height-related Labor Law claim.
Common Questions About the $6.5 Million Falling Object Settlement
What caused the $6.5 million falling object accident?
A hand tool dropped by a worker positioned roughly 20 stories above fell and struck the hard hat of a union laborer as he worked at ground level on a Bronx construction site. The worker lost consciousness and was hospitalized.
Was the $6.5 million recovery a verdict or a settlement?
It was a settlement. The case resolved through mediation before trial for $6.5 million after the Court granted the injured worker summary judgment on liability under New York Labor Law § 240(1).
Why did New York Labor Law § 240(1) apply to a falling object?
Labor Law § 240(1) protects workers from elevation-related hazards, including objects that are not secured against falling. Because the tool fell from an elevated part of the project and struck a worker below, the statute applied, and the Court granted summary judgment on liability.
Does a similar falling object accident guarantee a similar recovery?
No. Every construction accident case is different. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome, and the value of any claim depends on the specific facts, injuries, and legal circumstances involved.
Who can be held responsible when an object falls at a New York construction site?
Owners and general contractors carry a non-delegable duty under New York Labor Law to secure materials and tools being used at height. That duty cannot be passed down to a subcontractor, so a worker struck by a falling object may have a claim against the owner and the general contractor even when neither of them dropped the object.
Get Answers About Your New York Construction Accident Case
Oresky & Associates, New York Construction Accident Attorneys
Workers struck by falling objects at construction sites often face head and spine injuries, lengthy medical treatment, and an uncertain return to work. A single overhead hazard can end a career and leave a worker and family facing lasting hardship.
Oresky & Associates, PLLC, has spent more than 30 years representing injured construction workers throughout New York. The firm builds each case on the evidence and holds owners and contractors accountable under New York’s Labor Law.
If you or a loved one was injured by a falling object or in another construction accident, contact Oresky & Associates, PLLC, for a free, confidential consultation to discuss your legal options.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar future outcome.