The Infrastructure Expansion Act of 2025 bars absolute liability claims against property owners and contractors on projects that receive Federal financial assistance, federal tax incentives, or are subject to Federal permitting. Instead of strict liability, the bill requires that claims for injuries tied to elevation or gravity-related hazards be adjudicated under a comparative negligence standard and places such claims exclusively in federal courts.
The measure defines key terms — including “absolute liability,” “covered person,” and “elevation or gravity-related risk” — and preserves state workers’ compensation regimes.
This is a structural change to tort exposure on a wide range of public works and private developments that rely on federal support. By preempting state laws that impose absolute liability, the bill reduces the potential for strict-liability exposure for owners, contractors, and related parties, but it also shifts litigation to federal courts and alters the remedial landscape available to injured workers and other plaintiffs.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill prohibits absolute-liability suits for injuries tied to elevation or gravity hazards on projects that receive federal assistance, tax incentives, or federal permits, and substitutes a comparative-negligence standard where state law otherwise imposed absolute liability. It also preempts conflicting state laws and grants exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts for claims under the Act.
Who It Affects
Property owners, general contractors, subcontractors, and private developers working on projects that receive federal funding, tax incentives, or federal permits; covered persons (those who supervise or perform work) who would otherwise bring claims; state governments whose tort laws are preempted; and federal courts that will hear affected cases.
Why It Matters
The bill changes liability risk allocation on many infrastructure and transportation projects, likely reducing strict-liability exposure for project sponsors and contractors while limiting plaintiffs’ reliance on absolute-liability doctrines. That shift could affect contract pricing, insurance, project acceptance of federal funds, and incentives for on-site safety practices.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act targets claims rooted in hazards created by differences in elevation or by loads and materials being hoisted or secured. For any construction or infrastructure activity that qualifies as a covered project — from highway bridges and tunnels to airports, ports, utilities, and even private developments required to modify public assets — the bill forbids suits based on absolute liability when the project benefits from federal funding, tax incentives, or federal permitting.
In plain terms, owners and contractors cannot be held strictly liable in such cases without proof that their negligence was a proximate cause of injury.
Where a State would otherwise impose absolute liability for an elevation- or gravity-related injury, the Act requires application of a comparative negligence standard instead. That means fault can be apportioned: an injured person’s own negligence (for example, failure to use provided safety equipment) can reduce their recovery.
The statute clarifies that “covered persons” — those who supervise or perform work on a project — are the class of potential plaintiffs whose claims will be governed by this rule.The bill also makes this a federal matter: it preempts any state law imposing absolute liability for these risks on federally assisted projects and assigns exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts. The law does not touch state workers’ compensation schemes, and it becomes effective for projects where a State or local government accepts federal assistance on or after January 1, 2026.
Practically, whether a particular claim falls under the Act will hinge on (1) whether the work qualifies as a covered “project,” (2) whether the project received federal assistance, tax incentives, or federal permitting, and (3) whether the injury is properly characterized as elevation- or gravity-related.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Act forbids absolute-liability claims for elevation or gravity-related injuries on projects that receive any Federal financial assistance, Federal tax incentives, or are subject to Federal permitting.
States are barred from imposing absolute liability for these risks and must apply comparative negligence where they otherwise would have imposed strict liability.
The statute defines “covered person” as anyone who supervises or performs work on a project and “elevation or gravity-related risk” to include hazards from working at a different elevation or handling hoisted materials or loads.
The Act preempts state laws that impose absolute liability for such risks and grants exclusive jurisdiction over these claims to U.S. federal courts.
The provision preserves state workers’ compensation laws and applies to projects that accept Federal assistance on or after January 1, 2026.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the bill its name: the Infrastructure Expansion Act of 2025. This is a housekeeping provision but signals the bill’s scope: it is framed as an infrastructure-policy measure rather than a standalone tort statute, which matters for legislative intent analysis.
No absolute liability on covered projects
Establishes the central rule: for projects receiving federal aid, tax incentives, or federal permitting, plaintiffs may not bring claims based on absolute liability for injuries tied to elevation- or gravity-related risks. Practically, this removes strict-liability doctrines (liability without fault) as a basis for recovery against property owners or parties to a contract or subcontract on qualifying projects.
Comparative negligence replaces absolute liability
Directs that a comparative negligence standard governs these claims and explicitly forbids States from imposing absolute liability in any form for the specified risks. Litigation will focus on fault allocation — whether an owner’s or contractor’s negligence was a proximate cause — instead of imposing liability regardless of a plaintiff’s conduct.
Federal preemption of conflicting state law
Declares that the Act supersedes and preempts state laws that impose absolute liability standards for elevation or gravity-related risks on federally assisted projects. States are required to adopt comparative negligence standards for claims arising under a covered project, which constrains traditional state-level tort law autonomy in favor of a uniform federal rule for affected projects.
Exclusive federal jurisdiction
All claims arising under the Act are to be heard in federal courts, barring state courts from applying absolute-liability standards to covered projects. This channels related litigation into the federal docket and may change procedural posture, venue selection, and potential remedies analysis compared with state-court practice.
Key statutory definitions
Provides working definitions for terms that determine application: “absolute liability” (liability without regard to the injured person’s conduct), “covered person” (those who supervise or perform work), “elevation or gravity-related risk” (hazards from elevation differences or hoisted loads), “Federal financial assistance” (explicitly includes grants, loans, tax credits, Build America Bonds, and other incentives), and “project” (broad list covering construction and associated infrastructure, plus private developments required to modify public assets). These definitions create the litmus tests parties and courts will use to decide coverage disputes.
Workers’ compensation preserved
Makes clear that nothing in the Act preempts state workers’ compensation laws. Injured workers retain their statutory workers’ comp remedies; the Act operates alongside, not in place of, those schemes, which preserves the usual trade-off between exclusive workers’ comp and tort claims in many jurisdictions.
Effective date and applicability
Applies the statute to claims arising from projects where a State or local government accepts federal financial assistance on or after January 1, 2026. The clause confines the change to future projects that accept federal support after that date, rather than creating retroactive liability shifts for previously funded works.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Infrastructure across all five countries.
Explore Infrastructure in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Property owners and contractors — They face reduced exposure to strict-liability suits on federally assisted projects because plaintiffs must prove negligence and proximate causation rather than rely on absolute liability. That lowers the legal risk premium in contracts and may reduce contingency costs in bidding and project pricing.
- Project insurers and sureties — With strict-liability removed as a basis for recovery, carriers and surety providers can anticipate narrower bases for claims and potentially smaller payouts on elevation-related incidents, which could influence underwriting and premium calculations for infrastructure projects.
- Federal, state, and local agencies accepting federal assistance — By limiting tort exposure tied to federally assisted projects, the bill reduces a disincentive for jurisdictions to accept federal funds, potentially easing project financing and implementation decisions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Injured workers and other covered persons who would have relied on absolute liability — Their ability to recover may be reduced because courts will apportion fault and factor in plaintiffs’ conduct and safety compliance, possibly lowering damages or eliminating recovery if plaintiffs are found largely at fault.
- State governments and state courts — States lose a degree of control over tort standards for affected projects and must conform to the federal comparative-negligence rule; state courts will also see fewer of these cases because the Act channels them into federal court, shifting administrative and budgetary burdens.
- Plaintiffs’ attorneys and claimants’ advocates — Reduced availability of absolute-liability claims narrows litigation strategies and could decrease contingency-fee recoveries, altering access-to-counsel economics for workplace and public-injury claims.
- Federal judiciary — Exclusive federal jurisdiction for these claims will increase federal caseloads and require district courts to resolve fact-intensive, often technical negligence disputes that historically were litigated in state courts.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing two legitimate objectives: protecting the flow of federal infrastructure funding and reducing the legal exposure that can make projects unfinanceable or expensive versus preserving powerful state-law remedies that compensate injured persons and create strong market incentives for safety. The bill favors project financing and uniform liability rules at the expense of expanding direct remedies for certain injured parties.
The bill embodies a trade-off between preserving access to federal infrastructure dollars and preserving common-law remedies that plaintiffs have used to secure compensation and drive safety. Removing absolute liability narrows plaintiff options and reallocates litigation toward fault-based inquiries; that reduces one form of defense uncertainty but may also weaken incentives for some owners or contractors to invest in marginal safety measures that absolute liability would have encouraged.
Several implementation uncertainties invite litigation of their own. The statutory definitions are consequential but not exhaustive: courts will decide whether a particular incident is an “elevation or gravity-related risk,” whether a given incentive or permit constitutes qualifying “Federal financial assistance,” and whether a party qualifies as a “covered person.” The Act’s preemption language and the grant of exclusive federal jurisdiction raise questions about federalism and whether certain state interests (for example, consumer protection or traditional tort doctrines) can be displaced uniformly.
Finally, concentrating these disputes in federal courts may create venue and docketing pressures and shift legal doctrines (e.g., procedural rules, evidence standards) in ways that materially affect outcomes compared with state-court practice.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.