This
service is provided by the Building Industry Association of Tulare/Kings
Counties Safety Committee. Alerts are designed to provide our members with quick
safety information that shows a link between the lack of safe practices,
injuries or fatalities that resulted, and penalties affirmed. This information
is taken from the California Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Board
(COSHAB) decisions, and affects all BIA member construction activities. Also
included are safety regulatory items of interest, causes of fatalities and how
they can be prevented.
Decisions
–
§
1632(c)
Floor Openings – Protecting Ladderway Entrances
An inspection by Cal/OSHA
of a job site where an accident occurred resulted in a citation for lack of
protecting a fall exposure (9 feet from the second story to the first); the
entrance to a ladderway. The citation of the safety order requires such openings
“to be guarded either by a swinging gate, or by an offset configuration that
requires purposeful movements before an employee can step into the opening.”
Upon review at the appeals board, it was determined that all sides of the
opening were appropriately guarded, however the opening where the ladder
protruded, guarding was insufficient. However, employee exposure to the
ladderway entrance was not proven since nothing about the injury was presented
by the Division.
Penalty:
Citation and penalty:
General violation and $350.00 penalty vacated.
Raising
Ballooned Framed Walls –
Federal
OSHA has noted that a common practice in residential construction, manually
raising balloon framed walls, is becoming increasingly hazardous. Balloon
framing is the placement of walls that run the entire vertical length from the
floor sill plate to the roof. Between July 1999 to July 2004, 22 collapses
(those reported) have resulted in 5 fatalities and 28 injuries; 16 of which
required hospitalization. These walls are becoming increasingly heavier due to
newer designs. As a result, foremen are usually guessing the weight of the wall,
and estimating the number of employees needed to perform the task safely;
increasingly in error. Suggested safe guidelines and practices are as
follows:
·
Pre-plan
the job, and determine the correct weight of the
wall.
·
Conduct
pre-lift meetings to discuss the safest raising methods. These meetings don’t
need to be long.
·
Use
a competent person to supervise all aspects of the
lift.
·
Use
cranes with the appropriate attachments, forklifts of adequate size and capacity
and securing, and manual or mechanical / electrical wall jacks to assist
lifting.
·
Establish
a limited access zone prior to the lift. The access zone, on the other side of
the wall, should be the height of the wall + 4 feet, and limit access of
personnel.
·
If
manual lifting can be done safely, make sure there are enough workers to prevent
the wall from falling back and to prevent overexertion (strains /
sprains).
General
Contractor Ruled Not Entitled to Indemnification from Sub-contractors in
Fatality Case –
In
a worker death case at a construction site, a California appellate court ruled
that a subcontractor does not have to indemnify the general contractor for its
portion of a $1,000.000.00 + civil judgment. This case stems from a fatal
accident that occurred when an employee lifted a piece of plywood on the roof of
a construction project, and stepped through the hole is was covering (Ed. Note:
the roof-hole cover should be secured and marked to prevent this type of
accident). The trial involved 3 companies: 1 general contractor and 2
sub-contractors (one a metal decking sub-contractor, the other a HVAC
installer). At trial, responsibility for the accident was deemed as
follows:
·
General
Contractor – 45%
·
Sub-contractor
1 (decking) – 30%
·
Employee
(deceased) – 25%
The
jury awarded $1,171,800.00 for wrongful death, and the general contractor’s
amount was $535,194.00. The general contractor then sued the 2 sub-contractors,
and won a partial victory in California Superior Court. The ensuing appellate
court decision stated that both the general contractor and sub-contractor “were
actively engaged in the construction work being performed and both had
responsibility for safety on the site.” The court further stated that while the
sub-contractor created the hazard, the general contractor assumed
responsibility. “The language of the indemnity clause did not purport to require
indemnity from (sub-contractor) for this conduct by (general contractor). We
find no reason to depart from the general rule that an actively negligent
indemnitee cannot recover under a general indemnity
contract.”