Construction Accident — No Win No Fee
Construction site injuries can be pursued through workers' compensation and third-party lawsuits on a contingency fee basis. Third-party claims against general contractors, property owners, and equipment manufacturers allow injured workers to recover full damages beyond workers' comp benefits.
What Is the Difference Between Workers' Comp and Third-Party Claims?
Direct Answer: Workers' comp provides no-fault benefits but limits damages (no pain and suffering). Third-party claims allow full damages against negligent parties other than your employer — such as general contractors, equipment manufacturers, or property owners. Construction accident attorneys work on contingency.
Workers' compensation provides benefits regardless of fault but limits the damages available — there is no recovery for pain and suffering. Third-party claims against parties other than the employer allow injured workers to recover the full spectrum of damages, including pain and suffering, future lost earnings, and loss of enjoyment of life.
OSHA and the Fatal Four
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulates workplace safety on construction sites. OSHA identifies four leading hazard categories responsible for the majority of construction fatalities:
- Falls — from scaffolding, ladders, roofs, and elevated work platforms
- Struck-by — being hit by falling objects, vehicles, or equipment
- Electrocution — contact with power lines, faulty wiring, or ungrounded equipment
- Caught-in/between — being caught in or compressed by equipment, machinery, or collapsing structures
New York's Scaffold Law
New York Labor Law § 240(1), known as the "Scaffold Law," is one of the most powerful worker protection statutes in the United States. It imposes absolute (strict) liability on property owners and general contractors for gravity-related injuries to workers — including falls from heights and injuries from falling objects. The law does not permit comparative negligence as a defence.
Frequently Asked Questions
You May Also Be Interested In
Where this applies: Contingency fee rules are set state by state. Check your own state's rules before acting.
Sources for this page
Every rule stated above is based on the primary sources below. Each link goes to the legislation, court rule or regulator itself so you can check it. Last verified 2 August 2026.
- ABA Model Rule 1.5 (Fees)
Model, not law. Each state adopts its own version. Rule 1.5(d) bars contingency fees in most domestic relations matters and in criminal defence.
- Cornell LII — contingency fee
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) (costs to the prevailing party)
A losing plaintiff may be ordered to pay the defendant's taxable costs. There is no US equivalent of QOCS.
Who wrote and checked this page
- Written and published by
- Edward & Amaury Solicitors (Edward & Amaury Ltd, company no. 12195443), regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under no. 800525.
- Legal review
- This page has not yet been through independent legal review. It is written from the primary sources listed below, which you can check directly.
- Review dates
- Last reviewed 2 August 2026. Next review due 2 February 2027.
Fee rules change. California’s medical malpractice fee limits changed on 1 January 2023, and the QOCS rules in England and Wales changed on 6 April 2023. If you spot something out of date, tell us — we publish corrections.