You got hurt at work, and now your employer is saying it was partly your fault. Maybe you skipped a step, didn’t follow every protocol to the letter, or made a judgment call that didn’t work out.
The implication is clear: because you made a mistake, you don’t deserve compensation.
That is not how New York law actually works in most cases. When someone gets injured, the question isn’t whether they were perfect. It’s who was legally responsible, to what extent, and what remedies the law provides.
An employer’s claim that you share some blame does not automatically defeat your right to recover, and the legal effect of your own conduct depends on what type of claim you have and how New York’s fault rules apply to it.
Does Being Partly at Fault Mean You Lose Your Case?
No, in most cases. New York follows pure comparative negligence for personal injury claims under CPLR Article 14-A, specifically CPLR 1411.
That means even if you share some responsibility for what happened, you can still recover. Your damages get reduced by your percentage of fault, but you are not automatically barred from recovering just because you made a mistake.
If a jury finds you 30 percent responsible and the other party 70 percent responsible, you still recover 70 percent of your damages.
If you were 60 percent at fault, you still recover 40 percent. This is different from states that use a modified comparative negligence rule, where crossing a fault threshold, often 50 or 51 percent, wipes out your recovery entirely.
New York generally does not work that way for non-vehicle injury claims, though motor vehicle cases commenced on or after May 26, 2026 follow a different rule, covered below.
So when your employer says “you were negligent too,” they’re often making an argument about how much you should recover, not whether you can recover at all. That distinction matters.
How Does Workers’ Compensation Change the Fault Question?
If you were injured in the course of your employment, you are typically entitled to benefits regardless of who was at fault. It does not matter if you made a mistake, got distracted, or even violated a safety rule.
The tradeoff is that workers’ compensation is usually your exclusive remedy against your employer, meaning you generally cannot sue your employer in civil court for a work-related injury, even where the employer was negligent.
There are exceptions, and New York’s workers’ compensation law names them specifically under WCL § 10.
Benefits can be denied where an injury was caused solely by the employee’s on-duty intoxication, by the employee’s willful intent to harm themselves or someone else, or by voluntary off-duty athletic activity unrelated to work duties, unless the employer required or paid for it.
Courts read “solely” narrowly, so if intoxication was only one contributing factor among others, this exception usually doesn’t apply.
Separately, intentional harm by an employer or a coworker can fall outside the exclusive remedy rule entirely, opening the door to a civil claim instead of, or alongside, a workers’ comp claim.
But for most New York employees in most situations, fault genuinely is not the determining factor.
So when your employer tells you the accident was your fault, that argument usually doesn’t affect your workers’ compensation claim at all. The question isn’t who was careless. It’s whether you were injured while doing your job.
When Does Your Own Negligence Actually Matter More?
Your conduct becomes more relevant when someone other than your employer contributed to your injury. These are third-party claims, and they work differently from workers’ compensation.
Say you’re hurt at work because a contractor did shoddy electrical work, defective equipment malfunctioned, or a property owner failed to maintain safe conditions.
In situations like these, you may have both a workers’ compensation claim against your employer and a separate negligence claim against the third party.
In the third-party lawsuit, comparative negligence rules apply, so the defendant can argue you share some fault, and if a jury agrees, your damages get reduced accordingly. But again, this usually affects the amount you recover, not whether you can recover.
One example needs a separate note. If a delivery driver hit you while you were working, and the crash happened on or after May 26, 2026, that claim runs on New York’s newer motor vehicle fault rule rather than ordinary comparative negligence.
Under CPLR 1411(b), if your share of fault in that crash is greater than the combined fault of everyone you’re suing, or greater than the sole defendant’s fault if there’s only one, you recover nothing from that claim.
This carve-out applies only to motor vehicle collisions; a claim against a contractor, an equipment manufacturer, or a property owner still follows the pure comparative negligence rule described above.
The key across all these claims is proving that the third party owed you a duty of care, breached it, and caused your injury. If you establish that, the fact that you also made a mistake does not automatically let the third party off the hook.
Multiple parties can be responsible for the same injury, and this is also where employer blame-shifting often reveals itself as a distraction, since your employer may want to emphasize your mistakes to deflect from a third party’s negligence or unsafe conditions the employer allowed to persist.
What If Your Employer Was Actually the Negligent One?
Sometimes the real issue isn’t that the employee made a mistake. It’s that the employer failed to prevent foreseeable harm, through negligent hiring, negligent training, negligent supervision, or negligent retention.
These claims focus on what the employer knew or should have known, and what the employer failed to do about it:
Did the employer hire someone with a dangerous history without checking?
Did the employer fail to train workers on hazardous equipment?
Did the employer ignore repeated safety violations?
Did the employer keep an employee on the job after learning that person posed a risk to others?
Negligent hiring and supervision claims often arise when one employee is injured by another, or when a customer or third party is injured by an employee.
New York courts have recognized that employers owe a duty of reasonable care in selecting and supervising their workforce, especially where the work involves risk to others.
Where an employer knew or should have known an employee was unfit or dangerous and failed to act, and that unfitness contributed to the injury, the employer can potentially be held liable, even where the immediate cause was another employee’s conduct.
When Does Your Own Fault Not Matter at All?
In some claims, your conduct may carry very limited legal weight or none at all.
Strict liability in product cases
If a defective product injured you, the manufacturer can be held liable even if you weren’t perfectly careful, as long as you were using the product in a reasonably foreseeable way. The focus is on the product’s condition, not your conduct.
Labor Law 240(1), the Scaffold Law
This statute imposes strict liability on property owners and general contractors (with a narrow exemption for owners of one- and two-family homes who don’t direct the work) for elevation-related injuries, like falls from a ladder or scaffold, or being struck by a falling object.
Under 240(1), a worker’s comparative negligence is not a defense at all. The only real defense is proving the worker’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident, a difficult standard for a defendant to meet.
Labor Law 241(6) works differently
This statute requires construction, excavation, and demolition sites to comply with specific safety rules in the New York Industrial Code. Unlike 240(1), comparative negligence is a valid defense under 241(6), and it reduces your recovery proportionally the same as an ordinary negligence claim would.
A 241(6) claim is still a powerful tool, since it doesn’t require proving your employer’s general carelessness, only a specific code violation, but it does not carry the same all-or-nothing protection that 240(1) does.
Why Do Employers Use the “You Were Negligent Too” Argument?
Understanding why employers and their insurers emphasize your fault helps you evaluate whether the argument is legally sound or just a negotiating tactic.
Often, the goal is to reduce the value of a claim or discourage you from pursuing it at all. If your employer convinces you that you were mostly at fault, you might accept a lower settlement or decide not to file.
Employers also use fault arguments to shift focus away from their own failures: inadequate training, poorly maintained equipment, unenforced safety rules, or known hazards nobody warned you about.
In third-party cases, there’s an added wrinkle. If you recover damages from a third party, the workers’ compensation carrier that paid your benefits may have a right to recover some of what it paid you out of that recovery.
That gives the carrier an interest in maximizing what the third party pays, which sometimes means minimizing your share of fault, though the incentives can point the other way if the carrier or employer has other interests at stake.
What Should You Actually Do When Your Employer Blames You?
Don’t just accept your employer’s conclusion. Their interests are not the same as yours, and their assessment may not be accurate.
Figure out what type of claim you have. Workers’ compensation, a third-party lawsuit, or both. This changes how fault matters and what your options are.
Get the facts down while they’re fresh. Write down what happened, who was involved, and what was said. Identify witnesses. Take photos. Gather documents, emails, or safety reports related to the incident.
Don’t give a recorded statement or sign anything you don’t understand. Insurers sometimes use early statements to lock you into a version of events that emphasizes your fault. You have a right to speak with a lawyer first.
Be honest, but don’t assume every mistake is legally significant. There’s a real difference between “I could have done something differently” and “I was negligent in a way that bars my claim.”
Document any unsafe conditions, missing equipment, or inadequate training that contributed to your injury. Employers sometimes focus entirely on your errors while leaving their own failures out of the conversation.
Consider whether other parties were involved. A contractor, property owner, equipment manufacturer, or another driver may open up claims beyond workers’ compensation, which are not subject to the exclusive remedy rule.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can my employer deny workers’ compensation because I made a mistake?
Generally, no. Workers’ compensation is a no-fault system, so your employer usually cannot defeat a claim by showing you were careless, distracted, or even violated a safety rule, as long as the injury happened in the course of your employment. The narrow exceptions involve on-duty intoxication that solely caused the injury, willful self-harm, or voluntary off-duty athletic activity, none of which apply to an ordinary workplace mistake.
If I was partly at fault for a slip and fall at a job site owned by someone else, do I still have a case?
Usually yes. New York’s pure comparative negligence rule reduces your recovery by your share of fault rather than eliminating it, for claims outside the motor vehicle context. A property owner who allowed a hazardous condition to persist can still be liable even if you also share some blame.
Does comparative negligence apply the same way to all Labor Law claims?
No. Under Labor Law 240(1), your comparative negligence is not a defense at all, only proof that your conduct was the sole cause of the accident can defeat the claim. Under Labor Law 241(6), comparative negligence does apply and reduces your recovery, the same as an ordinary negligence claim.
What if a delivery driver hit me while I was working?
You likely have both a workers’ compensation claim and a separate claim against the driver. For crashes on or after May 26, 2026, that separate claim runs on New York’s motor vehicle fault rule, which can bar recovery entirely if your fault exceeds the combined fault of everyone you’re suing, or the sole defendant’s fault if there’s only one, unlike the pure comparative negligence rule that applies to most other third-party workplace claims.
Should I talk to a lawyer even if my employer says the accident was my fault?
Yes. An employer’s or insurer’s assessment of fault is not the final word on your legal rights, and many cases that initially look difficult resolve favorably once the full facts and the correct legal standards are applied.
Summing It Up
When your employer says you were negligent too, it’s natural to worry you’ve lost your chance at compensation.
In third-party negligence cases, pure comparative negligence reduces your recovery rather than eliminating it, except in motor vehicle claims arising on or after May 26, 2026, where a majority share of fault can bar recovery entirely.
And in cases involving strict liability or Labor Law 240(1), your own negligence may carry little or no legal weight.
The real question isn’t whether you were perfect. It’s who was legally responsible, what duties they owed, and whether they breached those duties in a way that caused your injury. If you’ve been injured and told it was your fault, that shouldn’t be the end of the conversation.
Porter Law Group represents injured workers across New York in workers’ compensation and third-party injury claims, on a contingency fee basis, so there is no fee unless we win.
Call 833-PORTER9 or email info@porterlawteam.com for a free, no-obligation consultation.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
