This audio is automatically generated. Please let us know if you have any comments.
Ken Fulginiti is a trial attorney and founder of Fulginiti Law, based in Philadelphia. The opinions are the author’s own.
In the United States, skylines are rising again. Cities are converting office towers into residential buildings. The housing shortage is driving mixed-use developments. Urban centers are being rebuilt vertically rather than outward.
at the same time, the US construction industry has grown to more than 8 million workers, with major cities pushing upward in search of more space.
Ken Fulginiti
Courtesy of Fulginiti Law
But the vertical expansion of construction entails a stark reality. As the United States grows, the potential for catastrophic injury litigation tied to skyscraper construction increases with it. And unlike the usual practice of project stakeholders who make the risk trickle down to the entity below them, in high-rise construction, the risk goes up.
High-rise construction increases risk in a way that ground-level projects simply don’t. The lack of a guardrail at ground level can injure someone. At forty floors, it can kill.
Bureau of Labor Statistics data consistently shows construction America’s most dangerous industrieswith falls remaining the main cause of worker death. By 2024, more than 300 construction workers died in fall-related incidents, many from heights in multi-story projects. Very often, these incidents end up in court.
The Persistent Myth of the “Worker’s Mistake”
Defense narratives in fall cases often refocus on a worker’s actions, arguing that a worker didn’t tie, hook, or enter an opening. Of course, individual conduct is important, but these accidents rarely result from the misstep of a single worker.
Instead, when these cases come to court, the jury is often asked a simple question: Were reasonable precautions in place to avoid the foreseeable consequences of a fall? Given this framing, juries are rarely convinced that catastrophic events are simply the result of a worker making a mistake while trying to make a living.
Rather, juries tend to examine the system that was in place to prevent injury in the first place. They will ask you:
- Was there actually a link point available where the work was assigned?
- Were the anchor systems designed or improvised?
- Were the rails continuous?
- Were safety nets installed under the attack edges?
- Was the lighting adequate for night work?
- Did the crews rush to get the milestone bonuses?
- Were there too many operations stacked on the same floor?
Given this approach, high-rise project liability cases rely on layered defenses. When systemic protections are lacking, blaming the person closest to the edge seems hollow.
Who is responsible for a worker’s fall?
One of the defining characteristics of modern high-profile litigation is the breadth of defendants. Beyond landlords who impose aggressive schedules, these cases increasingly target developers who keep buildings partially occupied, general contractors who coordinate stacked trades, and construction managers with sitewide authority.
But they can also be extended to safety consultants who wrote protocols, scaffolding companies, equipment suppliers and manufacturers, and maintenance contractors responsible for inspections.
Courts look closely at control, predictability and conservation of authority. Relevant questions include who could stop the work, who knew about recurring hazards and who received reports of near misses, as well as which parties approved the temporary conditions or controlled access. In other words, if you have a role in one of these projects, liability could easily be extended.
Contracts are important in resolving indemnification and insurance obligations. But they do not isolate the parties who exercised real-world control over hazardous conditions. Juries often look at internal emails about deadlines, records showing repeated complaints and inspection reports indicating unresolved hazards. Even weather warnings that were ignored to keep projects going.
These documents shape cases long before trial. They tell a story not of isolated accidents, but of the risk of normalization.
What should high-rise project actors do
Project owners and leaders looking to reduce exposure should focus on systemic protections. Not only do these measures save lives first, which should matter to everyone, but they also become central issues when courts assess whether reasonable care was taken.
These include:
- Anchor systems designed instead of ad-hoc links.
- Redundant perimeter barriers and hole covers.
- Safety nets under the front edges.
- Clear wind speed stop thresholds.
- Dedicated traffic directors and controllers.
- Lighting audits for morning and night work.
- Independent safety inspections.
- Monitoring the useful life and maintenance histories of harnesses and cords.
- Authority of security personnel to stop work without penalty.
How jurors view fall cases
When a high-rise fall comes to trial, the defense often reminds jurors that the construction is dangerous. Jurors understand that. But they also understand that danger does not excuse avoidable risk.
Construction workers must be able to perform their work in an environment that follows established safety standards designed to protect them. What juries ultimately examine is whether these rules were treated as priorities or obstacles.
They look for clues that indicate whether the system’s design could lead to failure, whether warnings were not heeded, and whether deadlines overruled prudent judgment. Ultimately, they want to know if someone had the power to fix a problem but chose not to. This is where these cases are won or lost.
America’s skyline can keep rising. With this trend comes an inevitable truth for homeowners, contractors and manufacturers:
In high-rise constructions, the risk travels upwards. Also responsibility
