Labor Law §240(1) and Labor Law §241(6) are important statutes in providing protection to workers engaged in a broad range of construction, demolition and other tasks. However, the two statutes are significantly different in their scope and proof. Labor Law §240(1) imposes absolute liability for the failure to provide adequate protection against risks arising from physically significant elevation differentials encountered in the performance of enumerated activities specified in the statute. Comparative negligence is not a defense to liability under §240(1) and liability under this statute is not dependent upon the breach of any outside rules, regulation or standards of conduct. Zimmer v. Chemung County Performing Arts, 65 N.Y.2d 513 (1985).

Unlike Labor Law §240(1), comparative negligence may be asserted as a defense to liability under §241(6). A further and very importance distinction is that §241(6) is not self-executing. Plaintiff must show that a violation of a concrete provision of the New York Industrial Code was a proximate cause of his or her injuries in order to impose liability under §241(6). The violation of an Industrial Code regulation will serve as evidence of negligence. See, e.g., Long v. Forest-Fehlhaber, 55 N.Y.2d 154 (1982).  OSHA violations do not establish a predicate for liability under §241(6).