Construction Injuries & Expert Witnesses

Transcription

1 Construction Injuries & Expert Witnesses Martin L. Glink Law Office of Martin L. Glink 1655 N. Arlington Heights Road Suite 100 East Arlington Heights, IL fax Introduction Protecting the rights and the safety of construction workers is truly challenging and rewarding work. One usually works against top lawyers, whether with Plaintiff or Defendant. Construction managers, and superintendents are usually tough, but heatable, witnesses. Handling such cases is expensive since discovery is intensive and fact-driven. It is hugely different from straight slip and fall cases. One must explore all avenues of information. Contacting co-workers, witnesses, local law enforcement, building directors and departments, OSHA, local fire departments, and, even Defendants or Defendant's representatives (pre-suit), can be time consuming but lucrative work. Working with your construction safety expert is exciting and a learning experience. Construction litigation is the perfect mix of office time, field work, investigation, pretrial and mediation, and trial time. Of course, expert witness work is crucial. It is another level of challenge, in terms of time and resources. Field work offers the chance to "get your hands dirty." Lawyers handling these cases know that even with the help of Google Earth or Google Maps, there is no substitute for a visit to the scene as early as possible after an event. This can be critical. Its importance cannot be overemphasized. The lawyer has to educate himselflherself about the scope of the work, the layout of the site; photographs should be taken of the scene, the signs, warnings, barricades, or the lack of them; sales and site advertising - trailers and offices on site, often with signage of contractor by name and title. These can be important pieces of the puzzle. Do not wear your best dress shoes, (I have seen younger lawyers arrive this way for a scene/site inspection). Visiting local building departments can be very helpful. One can discern what codes were applicable on the date of loss. Inspection of job documents can prove to be a treasure trove of information. Who took out what permits, who paid for the permits, what title did they apply 1

2 to themselves when applying for that building permit, who facilitated inspections, took progress photos, and invariably pledged to follow all codes, ordinances and construction standards - and even, pledged responsibility as "a general/prime contractor, "(euphemistically calling themselves, "construction managers"), to be responsible for all the work of, and for the safety of, all trades and contractors onsite. See e.g. Sobczak v. Flaska 302 Ill. App 3d 916, 706 N.E. 2d 990, 236 Ill. Dec. 116 (1st Dist. 1999). This is just some of the data that awaits the careful, thorough trial lawyer, and their expert witness. A set of profile plans for the project, which include important notes, almost always are in the building department's job file. Usually, it is cheaper to obtain these from the building department than from the Defendant. While one should not hire an expert to "hold one's hand," early involvement can lead to promising facts for theories of liability and critical evidence, key, real and demonstrative evidence can be obtained and preserved. The attorney must also become conversant/fluent in the language of construction. Each trade has its own vernacular, its own standards and has its own safety rules and safety devices. "Safety - speak" is an important area to learn. Fortunately, there is no shortage of sources of information and resources, along with highly competent experts. Information, Resources, and Evidence I. Start at the top. If the job is large, and, especially if the injury is serious or involves a death, notification must be given to OSHA. An OSHA report often includes a witness statement, (although it may also involve some level of identity protection); photographs, reports about key equipment or evidence the agency may have inspected, tested, and operated. A contractor's "Citation History" may also prove illuminating. If the contractor is fined and requests an appeal hearing it's a free deposition, so put yourself on the list of notifications for the agency. You have a right to be present and observe. 2. On small jobs, but not necessarily smaller projects, local police may have interviewed the construction manager, eyewitnesses, taken photographs or preserved evidence. In fact, statements by principals may prove decisive. When a jury hears from a Defendant that the construction/project manager, or the safety professional, only had "30 seconds," to act - but then, hears impeachment by prior, inconsistent statement that on the day of the catastrophic occurrence the same person told the police that he observed dangerous work for several minutes, fact-finding in a Plaintiffs favor should be the result. Calloway v. Bovis Lend Lease Inc. (2013 Ill. App 1st , Filed August 16, 2013, rehearing denied, October 3, 2013) is just such a case. Calloway v. Bovis Lend Lease Inc. supra. is the most current construction injury case. It is discussed in this hand out. 3. No project is built without preliminary presentations. Whether to the local building officials, the plan commission, the local Zoning Board of Appeals, or the municipal trustees, testimony by the principals is a gold mine. Testimony can be reflected in minutes of these governmental bodies. Sometimes, these are tape recorded or court reported. Sometimes, it is even broadcast on local cable television, (past shows are 2

3 easy to obtain). Invariably, the principals will speak glowingly about the project, and about themselves. They will pledge to follow all laws and safety regulations. They could even state that the Defendant will "have charge" of the work or the entire site, as the "general contractor" for the workers, general public, and nearby residents. 4. If the case involves a subdivision, go to the model (out of uniform). Pick up some sales literature. Advertising, admissions by the general contractor will be included. Likewise, statements about safety may also be included. 5, Labor Unions. Each trade on the job is probably represented by a union. Contact the local. Speak to the business agent, or the union steward. Much can be learned by such a foray. Each union usually has its own, local safety codes, rules and directives. 6. Law, Learned Treatise, and Voluntary Standards. These should always be explored. OSHA is well covered in our materials. These include Frank Burg's "Most Frequently Cited Serious Violations," and the table of contents for OSHA Section 1926, (attached). One need only inspect these to see the broad reach of OSHA, covering virtually every trade on the job. OSHA Standards and Regulations, are adopted by the Federal Government. They are "The Law". Compliance is mandatory. A IPI instruction on the standard of care should be given. Sobczak supra. At P Local Codes such as BOCA, are also "The Law", provided the governing municipality has adopted it. Almost all adopt a reliable code of one form or another. They usually do not "reinvent the wheel." State standards too should be checked, if applicable. I.D.O.T.'s "Construction Manual," "Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction," the Illinois Accessibility Code, the "Uniform Manual of Traffic Control Devices," and other reliable specifications or works should be part of one's safety library. Keep a copy of the A.D.A, handy. Publications/Treaties. Publications such as the "Construction Safety Handbook," by Mark McGuirre Moran is a fruitful tool to explore job site safety, and safety "lingo." Harry Philo's "L.D.R.", "Lawyer's Desk Reference" has lists of Codes, Standards, Experts, sources and resources complete with addresses and even telephone numbers. "Introduction to Fall Protection" by J. Nigel Ellis is useful. Voluntary Associations such as A.N.S.I., American National Safety Institute, (A117 is the construction safety group), A.S.S.E., the American Society of Safety Engineers, ASTM, American Society of Testing Materials, U.L. Underwriters Laboratory, National Roof Contractors Association, Contractors & Association, National Electric Code, AGC's "Manual of Accident Prevention," by the Association of General Contractors has many helpful sections. Many Defendants are members of this national organization. The National Safety Council, (1121 Spring Lake Dr., Itasca, 60143, ) can also be looked to for a great deal of safety literature, safety films and videos. Illinois Safety Rules of the Illinois Industrial Commission, is perhaps, an ancient document. However, it should remain admissible on the standards of care. Pyatt v. Engel Equipment Inc. 17 Ill.App. 3d I 070, 3

4 300 N.E. 2d 225 (3'd Dist. 1974); Bishop v. Crowther 92 Ill. App 3dl, 415 N.E. 2"d 599, 47 Ill. Dec. 594 (1st Dist. 1981); Averv v Moews Seed Corn Co. 131 Ill. App 2d 842, 268 N.E. 2d 561(3RD Dist. 1971). LePage v. Walsh Construction Co. App., 82Ill. Dec. 247, 468 N.E.2d 509 (3'd Dist. 1984). Templeton v. Chicago and Northwestern Railroad Co., 151 Ill. 2d 325, 603 N.E. 2d 441, 177 Ill. Dec (1992). Pozzi v. McGee Associates, Inc. 236 Ill. App 3d 390, 602 N.E. 2d 1302,177 Ill. Dec 130 (l'tdist. 1992). Even standards promulgated after an event can sometimes be admissible to show feasibility. See: Scott v. Dreis & Krump Mfg. Co. 26 Ill. 74, (1st Dist. 1975). To be complete, one should also contact your client's worker's compensation carrier or the servicing agency. The Worker's Compensation Act affords a lien upon any third-party recovery, (Ch 820 ILCS 350) 1 et seq. I.R.S. Ch ). Knowing that it could recoup up to 75% of the monies it paid puts the lawyer and carrier "on the same team." A smart adjuster will share the insured company's contract with the general or prime contractor, and frequently has a contract with the project owner and/or manager. The company may have taken scene photos or witness statement. It will gladly share these hoping to recoup its losses. Check the Defendant Index in the court of your jurisdiction. One may uncover prior, similar occurrences- depositions and answers to interrogatories of all parties, and principals may also be available. The internet yields a great amount or extent of source material. Most municipalities have their codes online. These are easy to check. Be thorough in your exploratory investigation. Insurers also do safety inspections. As they enjoy the same bar of exclusive remedy the Workers Compensation Respondent has, it should share. A violation of a Defendant's own safety rules and/or manual should also be admissible on the standard of care, and, upon the actual or constructive knowledge of the Defendant. Ryan v. Mobil Oil Co., 157 Ill. App. 3d 1069, 510 N.E. 2d 1162, 110, Ill.Dec. 131 (l't. Dist. 1987). Gall v. M.S.D. 109 Ill App. 3d N.E. 2d (l't Dist ). Grant v. Joseph J. Duffy Co. 20 Ill. App. 3d 669, 314 N.E. 2d 478 (l't Dist. 1974). Darling v. Charleston Memorial Community Hospital 33 Ill.2d 326, 211 N.E.2d 253, 14 A.L.R.3d 860 (Ill. Sep 29, 1965). Calloway, supra. If a violation of O.S.H.A. or a municipality's adopted code is proven, an I.P.I instruction should be given. Tennenbann v. City of Chicago 60 Ill. 2d 363, 325 N.E. 2d 607, (1975). Sobszak Supra. 4

5 The Law Of Construction Injuries Each year many thousands of construction workers are maimed or killed. Most of these occurrences are preventable, See: Harry Philo: "Revoke the Legal License to Kill Construction Workers", 69 DePaul L. Rev. 1 (Autumn 1969). This article by "The Dean of Tort law," is still as reliable and relevant today, as it was forty ( 40) years ago. From 1907 until February 14, 1995, construction workers had the protection of the "Structural Work Act," (also referred to as the "Scaffold Act"), Larson v. Commonwealth Edison, 211 N.E.2d 247 (Ill. 1965). This law recognized the real world and economic realities of the "hierarchy of construction." It's stated beneficent purpose; to protect worker safety. It virtually eliminated a Plaintiffs negligence as a verdict reducing or eliminating factor, unless - the Plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of the Plaintiffs injury. This safety statute, like the Road Construction Injury Act, was liberally, and broadly construed. Truth is: Many workers have little or no power to refuse instructions whether from the employer, the general contractor, n/k/a, the "Project Manager," or the safety superintendent. Construction is frequently, "if you won't' do it, I'll find someone else who will" "we only get paid if we're laying pipe," (Calloway v. Bovis Land Lease, infra, (2013). Workers will assume risks that they may or may not perceive as reasonable because their families "have to eat" or "I couldn't let my boss down." With the repeal of the Structural Work Act, (P.A , eff. 2/14/95), the common law was turned to for a level of protection. Fortunately, our Supreme Court in Larson v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 33 Ill.2d 316, 211 N.E.2d 247, (1965), laid the groundwork, the foundation, if you will, for future Appellate decisions - then to now. Our First District's very recent, Calloway v. Bovis Land Lease, Inc., 2013 Ill. App. (1' 1 ) , (August 16, 2013) (October 3, 2013), is the very latest work on this complex and challenging subject. Justice Stuart Palmer, with Justices McBride and Howse concurring, wrote a comprehensive opinion affirming the jury's verdict in favor of Plaintiff and a Plaintiff's decedent, for over Nine (9) Million Dollars ($9,000,000.00) The claim arose out of a trench collapse. The Honorable Clare Me Williams presided over this trial which lasted 2-3 weeks and "had many twists and turns." In Calloway, a school district hired Defendant Bovis as its "Construction Manager." 1 The district hired/contracted with DuPage Topsoil, who subcontracted with Hamilton Construction, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs decedent's employer. Hamilton was hired to excavate and install an underground sewer and storm water system. Defendant Bovis did not hire, contract with, or recommend Hamilton for this work. ' Many Defendant's use the word "scheduler" or "manager" as a euphemism for "General Contractor," "Prime Contractor," "Controlling Employer" or similar. Defendants surmise that a mere "manager" has less control over the project or the work, operative details or not. They seek to limit liability through the contract language. 5

6 On June 6, 2005, Hamilton employees, father and son, Henry Calloway, Sr. the foreman, and Henry Calloway, Jr., were working in a trench as part of their company's job. The actual trenching process was a required, specific, known, sequence involving at least twelve (12) steps. These included: 1. A hole is made by a backhoe or front-end loader. 2. A "trench box" 2 is put in place, down in the hole. Alternatively, shoring or sloping the trench to the angle of repose can also prevent cave-ins; 3. Stone is dumped on top to form the bottom of the trench. 4. Ladders are lowered down into the trench. 5. Men go down the ladders into the trench to level the stone. This grading is done by hand and shovels. 6. The sizeable pipe to be placed into the trench is fastened to the backhoe; 7. The backhoe picks up the heavy sewer pipe; 8. The backhoe swings the pipe into position; 9. The pipe is lowered down into the trench, unfastened from the back hoe by the workers working down in the trench; 10. The workers then lay the pipe and connect it to the pipe(s) already inside the trench; 11. The workers climb up the ladders out of the trench. While the sequence was undisputed, the time it took for all this to occur was hotly contested in the Calloway v. Bovis case. On the day of the occurrence, work was halted by Bovis' Senior Supt. Construction Manager, one Jim Blowers. Markings were exposed, indicating, that they were close to an underground electrical cable. At the time of the event, Calloway Sr. and Jr. were down in the trench feet deep, attempting to locate the electrical cable by hand and shovel. It was disputed whether the trench box had ever been in place, or, whether it had been placed but removed and was sitting topside, in the open, right next to the trench, in the presence of Blowers, and others. Apparently, the trench box would not fit, or, otherwise hindered the search for the underground electrical cable. No trench box was in place when the trench collapsed. This was contrary to Bovis' safety orientation plan. Senior was killed. Junior was severely and permanently injured. 2 A "trench box" is also called a "shield". It's is a structure that should prevent cave-ins and should withstand such forces to protect the workers in the trench. See: U.S. Department of Labor, O.S.H.A (a) and (b) attached. 6

7 Bovis tried to escape liability by claiming it did not "entrust," 3 the work to Hamilton since it signed no contract with this subcontractor, who was hired by the school district site owner. While the contract specified Bovis as the owner's agent, it's fairly standard language sought to place the manner and method, the operative details of the work, in Hamilton's control. Our Appellate Court astutely reasoned that entrustment, like control, retained, or supervisor/supervisory, was to be determined upon a totality of circumstances. In its cogent analysis, the Court held that general contractors, owners, and project managers could easily avoid or escape liability by mere contract language legerdemain. This could trickle down to "immunize" all but the last and lowest in the "Chain of Command", the hierarchy of construction, to the least competent, least insured, or immunized, subcontractor. If also Plaintiffs employer it is free from liability by the Worker's Compensation Act's (820 ILCS et seq), exclusive remedy of The "moneyman" would escape liability, the injured or dead workers would be unfairly compensated, and job safety - for all - would be eviscerated. Our First District ruled at page 27 of the slip opinion: "Neverless, we agree with the reasoning expressed in cases such as Henderson that the issue of entrustment, like that of control, should be decided based upon whether the circumstances of each case show that the construction manager actually entrusted work to a subcontractor and not based upon a bright-line test such as whether the construction manager actually signed the contract with the subcontractor. As noted, the control requirement can be met with respect to a construction manager where evidence of the construction manager's actions demonstrates that it retained a sufficient level of control, even where the contractual language formally assigns control to the independent contractor. We see no reason why entrustment should be evaluated any differently. Thus, we find that the entrustment requirement can be satisfied when the totality of the circumstances demonstrate that the construction manager actually entrusted work to a subcontractor, even where the construction manager did not actually sign the contract with the subcontractor. Bovis' interpretation that entrustment can be satisfied only if it signed the contract with Hamilton is overly narrow and formalistic and we decline to adopt it. To do so would allow project owners, construction managers and general contractors to easily avoid the reach of Section 414. " 3 "Entrust the work... " is the initial phrasing of Restatement of Torts (Second) S. 414, attached. 7

8 The Court rejected as a "formalistic" "over reading" the I st District's opmwn in O'Connell v. Turner Construction Co., 409 Ill. App. 3d 819 (1' 1 Dist. 2011) ( , 2011 WL ). O'Connell held that if the Defendant did not sign the contract or hire the subcontractor, it did not "entrust" the work, and, the issue of control is never reached. While Calloway holds that "actions speak louder than words", of the contract, Turner's construction contract in O'Connell, was far more restrictive in authority and control than Bovis'. Turner's onsite control, supervision, and lack of involvement was juxtaposed to the extensive involvement of Bovis in Calloway. Probably the single most important aspect was Bovis' significant involvement with job site safety. Blowers admitted he had authority to stop unsafe work, and, work that was not being done in accordance with Bovis' 34 page site- specific "Safety Plan". Hamilton admitted it had always followed Bovis' orders, including Blowers ordering the men out of the unprotected trench earlier that day and on an earlier occasion - Thus Hamilton was not entirely free to perform its work entirely on its own, but was required to adhere to Bovis safety plan, and its project safety orientation- required attendance for all contractors, and subcontractors. This included a section on "trenching", specifying that trench protection must be provided for any trench deeper than five (5) feet; it's "common sense", "Rules of the Project". Bovis also met each morning with all subcontractors, including Hamilton's Senior to discuss the work to be done that day. Blowers and 2 or 3 other Bovis supervisors, including a safety man, also walked the job daily and enforced the Safety Plan. Blowers ordered Sr. and Jr., and/or two (2) other workers, out of the unprotected trench. Immediately after this Blowers had a discussion with Calloway Senior. Right after this discussion, Senior and Jnnior both climbed down into the 12 foot- 13 foot deep trench to hand search for the electric cable. This was all done in the presence of Blowers. Blowers took a call on his cell phone, turned around towards the backhoe while other workers were hooking up the pipe. The backhoe had not yet swung the pipe in place when the trench collapsed. At trial, Blowers claimed Hamilton men were down there only 30 seconds. However, he acknowledged that he could have enforced Bovis' safety plan and orientation book by, "STOP! GET OUT!" in 15 seconds or less. He admitted he failed at his enforcement responsibilities. He also admitted he had given a statement to the police, and another statement two (2) days later, which described at least several minutes of unprotected work. A Hamilton co-employee testified that Blowers was right there - the whole time - as was the trench box - out of the excavation, openly sitting, topside, and that the 12 step process took I 0-15 minutes. He also said that everyone knew that connecting pipe to the backhoe meant that workers would be down in the trench to hand grade the stone, and to position and unfasten the pipe. Bovis claimed its contract restricted its authority to direct the means, manner and method of Hamilton's work. "I left those decisions to the subcontractors." Blowers said. Neither the jury, nor the Appellate Court bought into this. Bovis' actions, and especially its deep involvement with control over safety, spoke louder than words. It had been prognosticated for years that control of safety was the single most important factor in analyzing construction injury cases, see e.g., Philo supra; B. Kohen, "Construction Negligence: Out from the Shadow of the Structural Work Act," Ill. Bar Journal Vol. 87, p. 34 (January 1999). B. Kohen: "Construction Negligence: A Cause of Action under Repair," ITLA Trial Journal p.l2 (2000). 8

9 See also I.P.I. 55 et seq., (attached here and incorporated by reference) The series of Illinois Patterned Instructions was drafted to codify the common law after the Structural Work Act was repealed. Its formulation rests upon very solid foundation. Larson v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 33 Ill.2d 316, 211 N.E.2d 247, (1st Dist. 1965) (a nonstructural work act case); Weber v. N.l. Gas, 10 Ill.App.3d 625, 295 N.E. 2d 41, (l't Dist. 1973); Wilkerson v. Paul H. Schwenderer, Inc., 379 Ill.App.3d 491, 884 N.E.2d 208, 318 Ill.Dec. 653 (l't Dist. 2008), Haberer v. Village of Sauget, 158 Ill.App.3d 313,511 N.E.2d 805, 100 Ill. Dec. 628 (5th Dist. 1987); Aguirre v. Turner Construction Co., 501 F.3d 825 (ih Cir. 2007), Aguirre II v. Turner Construction, 582 F.3d 808 (ih Cir. 2009); Bokodi v. Foster Wheeler Robbins, Inc., 312 Ill.App.3d 1051, , 728 N.E.2d 726, 245 Ill. Dec. 644 (l't Dist. 2000); Brooks v. Midwest Grain Products of Illinois, Inc., 311 Ill.App.3d 871,726 N.E.2d 153,244 Ill. Dec. 557 (3'd Dist. 2000). Our Court in Calloway held at p. 58 of the Slip Opinion: Bovis also claims that the trial court abused its discretion when it gave the jury!pi Civil (2006) No series instructions. Those instructions are based upon section 414 of the Restatement and informed the jury what plaintiffs had to prove in order for Bovis to be found liable. These included that Bovis retained some control over the safety of the work and that Bovis acted or jailed to act in a number of ways, including failing to stop Junior and Senior from working in the unprotected trench. Bovis' claim that the evidence did not support these instructions is no more than a reiteration of its previous argument that its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should have been granted We have already rejected that claim and for the same reasons we find that the evidence supported giving the!pi Civil (2006) NO series instructions and that the court did not abuse its discretion by doing so. The Calloway Court, in citing I.P.I et. seq. with approval, followed the long line of cases that had adopted Restatement of Torts (Second) as "Standard of Care" evidence. S414 provides: 414 Negligence in Exercising Control Retained by Employer One who entrusts work to an independent contractor, but who retains the control of any part of the work, is subject to liability for physical harm to others for whose safety the employer owes a duty to exercise reasonable care, which is caused by his failure to exercise his control with reasonable care. 9

10 Comment: a. If the employer of an independent contractor retains control over the operative detail of doing any part of the work, he is subject to liability for the negligence of the employees of the contractor engaged therein, under the rules of that part of the law of Agency which deals with the relation of master and servant. The employer may, however, retain a control less than that which is necessary to subject him to liability as master. He may retain only the power to direct the order in which the work shall be done, or to forbid its being done in a manner likely to be dangerous to himself or others. Such a supervisory control may not subject him to liability under the principles of Agency, but he may be liable under the rule stated in this Section unless he exercises his supervisory control with reasonable care so as to prevent the work which he has ordered to be done from causing injury to others. b. The rule stated in this Section is usually, though not exclusively, applicable when a principal contractor entrusts a part of the work to subcontractors, but himself or through a foreman superintends the entire job. In such a situation, the principal contractor is subject to liability if he fails to prevent the subcontractors from doing even the details of the work in a way unreasonably dangerous to others, if he knows or by the exercise of reasonable care should know that the subcontractors' work is being so done, and has the opportunity to prevent it by exercising the power of control which he has retained in himself. So too, he is subject to liability if he knows or should know that the subcontractors have carelessly done their work in such a way as to create a dangerous condition, and fails to exercise reasonable care either to remedy it himself or by the exercise of his control cause the subcontractor to do so. c. In order for the rule stated in this Section to apply, the employer must have retained at least some degree of control over the manner in which the work is done. It is not enough that he has merely a general right to order the work stopped or resumed, to inspect its progress or to receive reports, to make suggestions or recommendations which need not necessarily be followed, or to prescribe alterations and deviations. Such a general right is usually reserved to employers, but it does not mean that the contractor is controlled as to his methods of work, or as to operative detail. There must be such a retention of a right of supervision that the contractor is not entirely free to do the work in his own way. Restatement Torts (Second) S414 accurately restates the common law. This learned treatise comports with the greater weight of authority. Interestingly, none of the comments, like the Section itself, none focus on "entrusts," as the court did in O'Connell, supra. Unless the contract's language and the Defendant's activities are so very restricted, reliance upon O'Connell is misplaced. Section 343 of the Restatement of the Law of Torts (Second) ( ), "Dangerous conditions known to or discoverable by possessor," of land has also been adopted by our Courts. It can be looked to for a negligence case based upon premises liability in cases where Section 414 may not apply. 10

11 Section 343 provides: Dangerous Conditions Known to or Discoverable by Possessor A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical hann caused to his invitees by a condition on the land if, but only if, he (a) knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk ofhann to such invitees, and (b) should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, and (c) fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger. COMMENTS a. This Section should be read together with s 343 A, which deals with the effect of the fact that the condition is known to the invitee, or is obvious to him, as well as the fact that the invitee is a patron of a public utility. That Section limits the liability here stated. In the interest of brevity, the limitation is not repeated in this Section. b. Distinction between duties to licensee and invitee. One who holds his land open for the reception of invitees is under a greater duty in respect to its physical condition than one who permits the visit of a mere licensee. The license centers with the understanding that he will take the land as the possessor himself uses it. Therefore such a licensee is entitled to expect only that he will be placed upon an equal footing with the possessor himself by an adequate disclosure of any dangerous conditions that are known to the possessor. On the other hand an invitee enters upon an implied representation or assurance that the land has been prepared and made ready and safe for his reception. He is therefore entitled to expect that the possessor will exercise reasonable care to make the land safe for his entry, or for his use for the purposes of the invitation. He is entitled to expect such care not only in the original construction of the premises, and any activities of the possessor or his employees which may affect their condition, but also in inspection to discover their actual condition and any latent defects, followed by such repair, safeguards, or warning as may be reasonably necessary for his protection under the circumstances. As stated in s 342, the possessor owes to a licensee only the duty to exercise reasonable care to disclose to him dangerous conditions which are known to the possessor, and are likely not to be discovered by the licensee. To the invitee the possessor owes not only this duty, but also the additional duty to exercise reasonable affirmative care to see that the premises are safe for the reception of the visitor, or at least to ascertain the condition of the land, and to give such warning that the visitor may decide intelligently whether or not to accept the invitation, or may protect himself against the danger if he does accept it. As stated in s 342, the possessor is under no duty to protect the licensee against dangers of which the licensee knows or has reason to know. On the other hand, as stated ins 343 A, there are some situations in which there is a duty to protect an invitee against even known dangers, where the possessor should anticipate hann to the invitee notwithstanding such knowledge. 11

12 c. As to invitees who go beyond the scope of the invitation, as to either time or place, see s 332, Comment I. d. What invitee entitled to expect. An invitee is entitled to expect that the possessor will take reasonable care to ascertain the actual condition of the premises and, having discovered it, either to make it reasonably safe by repair or to give warning of the actual condition and the risk involved therein. Therefore an invitee is not required to be on the alert to discover defects which, if he were a mere licensee, entitled to expect nothing but notice of known defects, he might be negligent in not discovering. This is of importance in determining whether the visitor is or is not guilty of contributory negligence in failing to discover a defect, as well as in determining whether the defect is one which the possessor should believe that his visitor would not discover, and as to which, therefore, he must use reasonable care to warn the visitor. e. Preparation required for invitee. In determining the extent of preparation which an invitee is entitled to expect to be made for his protection, the nature of the land and the purposes for which it is used are of great importance. One who enters a private residence even for purposes connected with the owner's business, is entitled to expect only such preparation as a reasonably prudent householder makes for the reception of such visitors. On the other hand, one entering a store, theatre, office building, or hotel, is entitled to expect that his host will make far greater preparations to secure the safety of his patrons than a householder will make for his social or even his business visitors. So too, one who goes on business to the executive offices in a factory, is entitled to expect that the possessor will exercise reasonable care to secure his visitor's safety. If, however, on some particular occasion, he is invited to go on business into the factory itself, he is not entitled to expect that special preparation will be made for his safety, but is entitled to expect only such safety as he would find in a properly conducted factory. f. Appliances used on land. A possessor who holds his land open to others must possess and exercise a knowledge of the dangerous qualities of the place itself and the appliances provided therein, which is not required of his patrons. Thus, the keeper of a boardinghouse is negligent in providing a gas stove to be used in an unventilated bathroom, although the boarder who is made ill by the fumes uses the bathroom with knowledge of all the circumstances, except the risk of so doing. This is true because the boardinghouse keeper, even though a man of the same class as his boarders, is required to have a superior knowledge of the dangers incident to the facilities which he furnishes to them. g. As to the duty of a possessor of business premises to protect his invitees from harm threatened thereon by third persons, see s 344. REST 2d TORTS s WL Section 343 and 343 A "Liability For Dangerous Conditions of the Premises" apply only to one in possession and control of property. Generally, this is the site owner. The owner can be guilty of failing to warn or make safe, dangers the owner knew of, or, should have known of. Ones that are not open and obvious. Genaust v. Illinois Power Co., 62 Ill.2d 456, 343 N.E.2d 465, 472 (1976). B. Kohen, "Construction Negligence: A Cause of Action Under Repair," supra. in a case resting upon 343 and 343A. Duty is analyzed in terms of likelihood and reasonable foreseeability of injury, the magnitude of the burden if guarding against it, and the 12

13 consequences of imposing that burden. Buchelears v. Chicago Park District, d 435, 665 N.E.2d 826 (1996). Concepts of distraction and forgetfulness of the danger may influence or ameliorate the open and obvious condition defense. Ward v. K-Mart, 136 Ill. 2d 132, 554 N.E. 2d 223 (1990). The deliberate encounter doctrine also reduces the harshness of open and obvious danger. LeFever v. Kemlite, d 380, 706 N.E. 2d 441 (1998). If a Plaintiff has "no choice", but to deliberately encounter the open and obvious hazard, i.e., it's the only entrance to the jobsite and economic reality is that the benefit outweighed the burden, liability can still attach under Restatement of Torts (Second) 343 and 343A. See also: Calloway, supra. Voluntary undertaking by a Defendant may be a Plaintiffs "last ditch" effort to impose liability. Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Co., d 69 (1964) 199 N.E.2d 769. Working With Your Safety Expert 1. When and How to Work with Your Safety Expert It is suggested that the attorney contact the safety expert as soon as possible after basic intake and initial investigation. A competent safety expert can direct you to the appropriate OSHA section to use in the Complaint. He/she can assist in gathering other voluntary codes, standards, and learned treatises. They can help shape your discovery requests. They can also assist in valuing your case upon the strength of any egregious violations. 2. The Expert-Attorney Relationship The "care and feeding" of your expert is very important. Offer to meet at the expert's place or time( s) of their convenience. Pay your expert's bills for professional time spent promptly. Remember too, there is no privilege to shield offhand, written, comments or thoughts. Anything transmitted to/from your 213(f)(3) retained expert witness is discoverable. Therefore, take care what is documented between you. If you have a "secret" theory of liability, or, special evidence, or, thoughts about the Plaintiff, the strength of your case, or even remarks about counsel, a phone call is better than the shortest letter. 3. Sources of Safety Experts There are many sources that contain qualified experts. Many are already listed earlier in the "Sources" section, including the Jury Verdict Reporter, or industry publications. Unions, the National Safety Council, Engineering schools can all make recommendation. Talk to other lawyers working in the field. Most will share their expert with you. If your case involved complex training or retained control, supervisory control, or safety on a multi-employer job site, and significant O.S.H.A. violation, OSHA instructors such as Frank Burg, (materials included), Dennis Puchalski, or many others can be consulted. See: Gary D. Smith, "OSHA Regulations Violations. A Standard of Care extended to Third Party Non-direct Employers on Multiple Employer Work Sites," Professional Safety July 1991 A.S.S.E. at

14 4. Testimony of Safety Experts Expert testimony and evidence in this area is the same as in any other. The expert's opinion must be to, "A reasonable degree of certainty". Article VII of the "Illinois Rules of Evidence," ISBA October 2010 attached, allows expert testimony if it will help the jury, (Rule 702). The expert should have a solid opinion with sufficient bases offacts and data. These may even be facts or data that are not themselves admissible, (R. 703). Opinion upon the ultimate issue is expressly authorized, (R 704). Conclusion While good safety practice has an element of common sense, safety is truly very sophisticated business. Working closely with a safety professional is one key to unlock the puzzle of vicarious and direct liability of one or more culpable contractors. The standard of care continues to evolve in these cases. Good trial lawyers practicing in this area of law will continue aggressive, thorough work to fully protect the rights of injured workers. Respectfully submitted, /2;.,0F~ OF MARTIN L. GLINK ~~nk 14

15 Safety and Health Regulations for Construction https :/ / oshaweb/ owastand.display _standard _grou... A to Z Index I En espaiiol I Contact Us I FAQs I About OSHA OSHA fl)sha uicktakes Newsletter W RSS Feeds E) Print This Page II D:Text Size Occupational 5atety 8lJiealth Administration We Can Help Home Workers Regulations Enforcement Data & Statistics Publications What's New 1 Offices Safety and Health Regulations for Construction General Industry Construction Maritime Record keeping Agriculture State Plans All Table of Contents 1926 Subpart A- General 1.9_2_Q_,_l..:EYIQQ_~_9Jld...!b.Q.P~- 19_26.2 : 1.1ariml!:;e.s1r.om.. SQfe.tY.. and hea!t!lstan_ctard.s~ Inspections- right of entry 12.2_6,_4.:_R_L!l _Qf_.P..Fi!~.t!.!;:.!,LfQui_O!llini_@'_g_tjye <@!Jr.licaJjoos for enfol-cem_~.o!.qf...~.t<:lt'i..i.!m.t.h~lt!:lstandqr-9~ ,.5_.:...m'~Ji,~;;ontr.o!..o.Ymbgr_s l!ndelltl_er<;~p.elw_ork Bm!.u.ct]Q_11Ac!, 19:?6 6 - Incorooration by reference. l.~.f._.syb.pmij~ _:_G!1..1J!l1D.ffirn_@~Jj:Q!l$ _Q:-_s_c_Qlli!_.9f.S!.!.P.Pil.It Coverage yoder section 103 of the act distinguished. J.926.J2:RE!Or..Q.i'!.!J]gj_tjQ_l]_f@O NQ_,_l_"lQf l9_5_q,_ J J.3..:.lD!eiPJ~@_ti_Q_o_:Q!' ~j:_y.oc!jy_ielfi,_ Federal contract fur "mixed" tyoes of performance _1_5 - RelatiQnsb.lR. tojt:t~.s.e.ty..lt::e.. C:OOtrl!kt~t; W.;..Lr;;h:.lie.a_~'Lf'1!bJLr:; Q)_o_trg~;~_Ao;;.t Rules o{ construction Subpart C - General Safety and Health Provisions Gen_e;:m_l saretv,_q.mtb.e.a!tb.q!q'lision~.~2!i2j._:~fety IU!]DlQg gnq_~_!jj&.t!q!l, Recording_ru1d reporting of injuries. l9.f._ _,_f.3 ~.. fiait21d g_nd _m5!_ill_gqj g_tt_eotiol!, Fire protection q_[l.q_q[eventiqo, HousekeepiQ.g,.12~9.2 _.:J[l!,J_t]_ll!_l_q_ti_Ql]_,_ Sanitation Personal protectjve eq~nt_ _:_k ep..w.bl~.. t.er.!:lficg_t(qos,_ Shipbt~i!diog and shjp reoairing. 12_:2_Q,_::u :JB._ _~t:y!;l_,) -~26.3_2_.:J)..ef!D.it.lOl!S,. J ZP.J~ - /JI:.cess to employee exposl!ffi and medical records. l9.4qj_4... J1f!P_tls._~es,s, Emoloyee ememency action plans Subpart D - Occupational Health and Environmental Controls 194!5.JD...:... t1~.!~&.l~!yit.es_a_oi;lftr_~_@~!2.2!5.c50..~qr_a_-_me!1i_c_q_[_;;.ejyjf~_!i.i:!d.d..jlr.st9lcl_. ~51- Sanitation. J.9.2.9_,.5.2 :_Q:_c_wpl!l!o_fJi:!L(I_Q.l~-e:l!:llQ.~V.re_, Ionizing radf.a.tlm!., Nonionizing r:adii!ti911. l!ll:.6.55_:_g_g_~... Y.fl.ROr.. fymes,j';i_u:'l~-gnd... m.isj:s., 12~_QQ A : Gases vapor.s,.ji!!d~!!sts.- and mi$,_ I of9 10/25/2013 4:57PM

16 Safety and Health Regulations for Construction https :/ / /pis/ osha web/ owastand.display _standard _grou Illumination.!9l.Q...aZ..::j!e.D..ti!i!ti.O.D., 1.92Q,.5.8..::J8r:.~I~J Hazard Communication @_- Me1bY~ILeQ.@rlj!iDJ~, App A- Substance Data Sheet for 4-4'-METHYLENEDIANIUNE App B- Substance Technical Guidelines MDA 1926.@_8QILC: Mecllcgl_S_l,l_t:'&Uian~e_ _ulde1jne.s.fol.m.p..a Aoo D- Sampling and Analytical Methods for MDA Monitoring and Measurement Procedures Apo E - Qualitative and Quantitative Fit Testing Procedures. 1~,.9_L:_8 :~JJ.ti.Q_Q_Qf..QQI.J!t<;IL~J!!9s-" -12@!;ill".ill; and labels Lead l326.6laqq..a.:_sy_q stqpce Data Sh 1 for Qq;yQ9tl9..og.U;:~p-~l!t:~.t9_1&_as! l5!26.62_aqq_il:-_e!d_pjo~ Standard Summ_qry Apo C - Medical Survei!!Qnce Guidelines ,22.. 8J:HLQ..:..Qu_g]_i@...t._ivs! Q_O~LQiJantii;g_t:ly_e_ it Te:&_f'_rotocoJ_s Process safety management of highly hazardous chemicals App A- List of Highly Hazardous Chemicals Taxies and Reactives (Mandatpr{! 1_9_?2,_P.;tA02J.L:,.e.lQ!';.k..E!m~J~.igg.nlm and Si_m!llifj~Q Process fjg.yi_q@grgm_qj_g_nmaqoi!.id!y) P..k:iillDPiiance Guidelines and Recommendations For Process Safety Management <NonmandatoM 192 _,_Qi 8pQ Q_:!;iQ1JJCes_Qf_Ey_rj:_Qgr_ InfQUil.9JLOD.J!iQ.DID.9JJ..!Ji!!P_ry) _l~_9_,_qs_:_tf_g_zgr_q_g_ys:_wsl~!;e._qp_e_rgtjg os g_o_q_~lileroency_r~llqde Aop A- Personal Protective Equipment Test Methods 192 _,_65 ~PP--~-:_il_ene@] j)_egr:iq_tiq_n_gdq Qjgussion_Q!J.tle_J,.e.Y.e _g.f.p..r.qtg_~jjg.r.lgn_d... f.:'mt~i\i.~.-g.. I l9.lq,_q_5_8,pq_!:.:_cqmp_li_gnce G_y_jdel[o_es Apo D - References 1.9..i?..Q.&!J... W.Q.f.. :_T@.!D_ing_!:YITLGYlY!Il_(iujQ_eline_s----=--1':!9n:m_a_odalm}' Criteria for desig_n g_nd construction of spray booths Subpart E- Personal Protective and Life Saving Equipment.t~@,.95_.:.. C.rJtg_ti91PL.P.~~oill p_rql;_e_give _e_q!jlrms!nt_ 12f.Q,2.Q.. ~-~C!J.P.2ti.Qo.aJ.. fqqt.q.lqtg~_q!1_ rreservedl _:_[Beservedl freservedl Head orotection. _!9_;? _,JQ,l_:l:!_e_a_ri[l_g _p_[q_t:ectf9il_,_ Eye and face protection. l92-_q_.1q_l_~_b Qi_@JQJ.Y.P.I.9.~ti9!h _.::..59..f.e.tv.. b.e.~~..!ife!.lr:!.es,_.q_!]_q_l<.!dymqs., Safety nets. l~_2ji_j_q.q_:_wq[_jg!}g_qys!s p_r n_e_ac.w g_~. l9_2q,_;tqz_:_!:le.fld_ill.ons_<.!qpj.!ha1!!~1q!bl-'i.liyb.p.att., 1926 Subpart F -fire Protection and Prevention Fire protection. J9.ZP.J,5J_: i@_p_.r. _v_e..o.t\qo Flammable li~.l9.4 _.1Q_l :!,J_guefi d petrqi.e_!jf!l_gg_~(_i,p :_G9.? Temporary_!]_ep_Qag_df!.Y.l.~.e.~ Definitions applicable to this subpart..t926_j_~6- Fixed_e)\!:]HO.Y.!Sl1.!D9.. WSID.!I!ll,.gsme.rg Fixed extinguishing systems gaseous agent Fire Q.e.te_g;l_QJ:l..ffi'Stems..t21.P..J.:?.9... :... J;mplQY..LSJJi!tm.S:YJ;1.JIIJ;_, 1926 Subpart G -Signs, Signals, and Barricades Accident prevention signs and tags. 2 of9 10/25/2013 4:57PM

17 Safety and Health Regulations for Construction / oshaweb/owastand.display _standard _grou Signaling.!92 _,2,_02 -Ji;;~r.r.ll;.~Q !U.::.J2Wnitions g_qpjic_<!.ble_jgjbj.:?... s.ubp_qit 19.f Suboart H - Materials Handling. Storaae Use and Disposal General requirements for storage. 1.2J.6.,2St.:...Rigg!og gqujgmmt for _mate_ripj.t@nqjjog, Disoosa! of waste materials Subpart I- Tools- Hand and Power 192._QJ.QO.:Jiem..@~_rnel!ts_._ Hand tools Power-operated hand tools. 19.l dq1.:...1\b.@!ili"e wl1eels_gnd!qqj? Woodworking tools Jacks-lever and ratchej screw and hydraulic. J9.ffi_,JQ_6 - Air r~(;.~jy.!::il>, Mechanical power-transmission apparatus. J91... ~QQQrL.L.-:.. W~!Qfna.ilfl_d_Gu!1iD_g l~.!u.sjl=--g_gs_wgldjog_gjj_d.. t!!tting_,_ Arc welding and cutting Fire oreventlon JS3.:..Y..e.o.tiJg!ion_and_QrotectiQ.fJJOJ.v.~IQlng, QJ_l;tlOg_,_~Ils!.ll!&Yoa., Welding cutting and heating in way of oreservative coatings Subpart K- ElectriC\011 12~2,..,400 :Jntr!X!_l.!.(;.tiQo., freservedl Applicabilitv "\Ql:.. G~-~ral r g~ Wiring desion and pmtect:ion. 12f. AQi_:: Wiri[l gjiig.tb.qq;;;,.. m!!lqqnen~_w{! g_qyjp.mmttqr generaijj~~ :Q.6.. :::.S..Q~.itlc_p_11.ffiQ~ffi!,tiRmenLandJ!lstQUQtiQo;;, Hazardous <classified) locations. -~_,_10Jl :::?_QeQgl. tgg.m.!ii, rreserve_ql rreservedl 192_9_,_-f.!.:t.:::JR~~J freservedl rreservedl J2.2_Q,114 ~JBg~f.Y.e_QJ freservedl l~-~q,_4l _:::..e_flg_@t~irem~n.. J926.41L:::J,~kojJ_LqnQjggg_[lliLQf... cikij~ freservedl 12;:!6.4:1,9 :1Belif!.!Y.QJ !Reservedl freservedl 12~Q.,iff_:1B~s.e.rxe.QJ freservedl.!~.4.9_,424- rr.e_~tygq.j!9.2ji._4_25_:_lli~.!.y QJ freservedl!926.4ll_-..lri!1!_etvedl J ::1B-1!.~ry.e_QJ freservedj _l2 2_ _.,1JQ.-_[_&e_~~gj 3 of9 10/25/2013 4:57PM

18 Safety and Health Regulations for Construction / oshaweb/owastand.display _standard _grou Maintenance of eauipment _2_-_.f.f.!Yjf..9_[1J!I. lt9l.qe.te.d9ii'!!1.9ilq[!n!lljljti~h.t :l..:.[B@_s_ervedl freservedl :.1Re~r.t.e.9J freservedl freservedj 192_Q..1.:l$.. ~.[Rese~QJ freservedl rreservedj l.:.. ~tt-~!les qmi Q_qtJ&!YJtm_rgjng_,_ freservedl 192Q..j43 -J.B~~rved] JReserveQJ freservedl 19.2Q,_41fi_- ffi~.lie:!ye.qj _ freservedl freservedl JJJ?.Q,±l2..:_Qgf!ni!iQ~_fl_pQ!)ci'!11.!g...!;Q.. tbis subpgrt,_ 1926 Subpart L- Scaffolds Scope. application and definitions aoolicable In this subpart :.~~~l@._!,!i&l!leilts, Additional requirements apo!icable to specific types of scaffolds. 1222,453 - Aerial lifts ,.1.~_4.. ::.. Irainlng_r_~mt!re.mf!_@i_, 1926 Suboart L Aoo A- Scaffold Specifkations 1926 Subpart LApp B- Criteria for Determining the FeS!.lilQilitv of Providing Safe Access and Fall Protection for Scaffold Erectors and Dismantlers 19.1-J! Sub.oiD:tk..OO_p_C_:_Jj_~_.oLN~.tiQn<lLCQo~_n_s_y~_S@.oQ.gffi~ 1926 Subpart L Aoo D - list of Training Tonics for Scaffold Erectors and Disma~ 1926 S.Yl2PJlJ!J.ApQ_~_: Q_rawLO..Q~.. <md_lli!!_stratlcm~ 1926 _S.LillP.i!rt.M.. ~.Eiill_P_r_otect!Qn Scooe. application. and definitions applicable to this subpart Dutv to have fg_jj_pr~tion.,t<,1~.,s_9l :_EQ!LJifQ!;.;.tiQil_Sjlgg ms cjit f.l9._.and QHICti~e_s_, Training requirements ~L!P.P..I!r:t.t-:1_.8Qp_A.:_~-~nJ1J!Jlo_g B_oo fjrvjq!b.(!..:jiq!l-mandq_\pfl..!jill~lin~fqlcqitipj lo.a.. w.itb.j2.zq.501_{b}(1q)_ _ S!.!.bP_<litM_ll._pJ!JL~.J~y_ar_Q_rn_il.S str;:.ms.. :_~.on-mandato_ry:_g!!.ld.f!jines for CompJylD.Q.. W..itb.. J92Q,_S_Q2.(tl) 1926 Subpart M App C Personal Fall Arrest Systems- Non-Mandatorv Guidelines for Complying with Cdl 12Q Subg_artt-:l.. ~oq Q_: Positi.Qfli!J.Q..Q~ce S~:J~I_Q!J.:M.QDQ.qi;Q_ry_Gu.i!itiJ.i!JS:SJQrl=9Jfl_pJ id9-wlt!lt9.2q~lfm 1926 Subpart M App E- Sample Fall Protection Plan- Non-Mandatory Guidelines for CompMng with Ckl 1926 Subpart N - Helicopters Hoists. Elevators. and Convevors _5_Q :.IB.f.servs;!_9J. Bgg.iQ.Mt~:!, _QLQy. new stgndard ig;_yg_d.1illgust_2j_q lq,_jd_.tb.~... ~9_!lliiLReaiste~ 7~! ,55l : jjfl:!i~qnters Material hoists. personnel hoists and elevators l.:...6QSfl:.-m..o_uo.~..rw:o_b.olsts... J ~5.±=---0vedJead.h9i~_,_ Conveyors. l9..29.ss_q_:_8j~l!i:!!.jifts Subpart 0 - Motor Vehicles Mechanized Equipment. and Marjne Opetr~tions Eouipment _01..:...!'1Qtor y_~ k;les. ~l.ji_,qql :_.!:'I_<JtelliLbanQ.!i.O!l_eQ_y_ip_ment Pile driving oouipment. l926,_6m:,s.i.t~j;;teariog, 4of9 10/25/2013 4:57PM

19 Safety and Health Regulations for Construction / oshaweb/ owastand.display _standard _grou Marine ooerations and eguioment. J.~;?. _,.Q _- Dgfj.IJ_[ljQD.fi:.. 9.P..P..U!';.9_b.[e..J,<:Ltb1~~l!-b.P_l!!l_!2_~~.i!.!1.P_- Excavatioflli Scope. apolication. and definitions applicable to tl1is subpart Specific Excavation Requirements. JJ!2.Q.652 : B_erudr_gmentsJ9LP.mte.!';.ti~e.. ~...tgm.s Suboart P Ann A- Soil Cia~ 1926 S!!b:Qm"l P App_j3_- Slooing_gnd BenchiQg 1926_s_yQpart P Apg C- n.m.p_gi..s.bmjo.g _f.gr_.irenc.b.e.~ 1926 Subpart P Apo D- Aluminum Hydraulic Shoring for Trenches 12:l:.!LS!.!bmrt.P-..8PJLf; :-_.8!tema..tives_to Timber $b_q!j.ng 122-.R.S.!J.t!.P.ar.lP...ARP.. E..= Se~t)Q.n_Qf_PfP_re_c_tive-.Sy.stem_s 1926 Sy.J2P.art 0 - Concrete and Masonry Construction Scope application and definitions app.l.i!:a.!jie to this suboart..! l.:..~.~D.eJ9J..rw!!irem_enl:!j: Requirements for equipment and tools. 12_:?:2,19_LReg_ulr~~o_~:S fqr_cgst~lfi:_qlg e_q.i.!lc.l~te,. _: Qp :- G.e_n.e:mLRoouir.l'1.m.e.n~.. f.or..f.qrmw.qd: Requirements for precast concrete q5... ~.. B._e.a_Yire.ments_lQ[.Jll'J;:s!Qb o_p.e:r!lli9_ns, App- lift Slab Operations Reauirements for masonrv construction. 12_26 SubR9~ 8 : B.~_r: m;_g_sj;g S..\J.P..R.9.LtQ..9f.J3l.rt 19_:?:, Subpart R - Steel Erection Sco~ 19..~15./...::..J::!e.f.loi!:i.om, Site layout site-soecific ere(;.tion olan and construction seauence Hoisting and rigging,_ J926,?_ tr.V.!';t.V.@.!.. ~e.!;l_9~ m b_!y, Co!wnn gnchorage Beams and columns..t9l..q.j'.5l_:j:i_pg_ll web ste.eljqi_sts" B...:...Systems engineered metal buildings. 1926, :_Eg.l!ing Q!;)jeg _QI_Q_!g~Q.Q, ~ l G:Q.: Faii.QIP~ctio n,_ Training. 1926_S.Y.bQQr.tJL,ll,p_p_8_:_\3_!J.lr.!e.!lne.!i!.fQ!'_!:l.5.@t!lis.hinq tflli_c.qmqqnents otas!re~fu;_j~r.e.c;tiqilj!.@n;_jl!qo:_l'1ai!.d.ittqr:y_g!!kielli'j. li_fqr..qj.mp..mm...y.ii.tb_!92fi]..5.f.{el Subpart R App B - [Reserved] 1926 Suboart R ApQC- Illustrations of Bridging Terminus Points: Non-Mandatory Guidlines for Complying with Ca)(1Q) and CcXSl. J2f..Q_S!J.bJlQftR A_2p Q :_lllustr_g_tism Qf ti)_~_i,j~_.qf..q!.o.!r.ql~!!l.e;;;jp Q~rnqr_c;_qt!il_QmtrPlleQ. _Q_e_c_~ll'!q_Z9I! _(_C.QZ.S)_;_I'ill.fl:mandatQ_ry Guidelines for Comply!og_~tb mg.76jl.(<;klj, 1926 Subpart RAppE- Training Non-mandatory Guidelines for Complying with Suboart R App F- Perimeter Columns: Non-Mandatorv Guidelines for Comotving with (el To Protect the Unprotected Side or Edge of a Walking/Working Surface. J..2fP SubRart R AQJL.G.-=-1229"_5'_Q:?._(bl~( ).Ji;~lLPI9~Ction.S.y~~-C:rit ria and Practices Subpart R App H- Double Connections: Illustration of a Clipped End Connection and a Staggered Connection: Non-Mandatory Guideljnes for Complyiog with (c)(l)_ 1926 SubpartS - Underaround Construction. Caissons. Cofferdams. and Comoressed Air _t2_2.,800_.:j)_ndergrmmd_qm~!:.r.!j.!;ti.qo Caissons Cofferdams. _l,2q,b.o..l.:.ipj!l_prj!_~_ffi~;_ Definitions apolicab!e to this subpart 1926 SubpartS App A - Decomnress.J.Qn T~ J.U6 Sub.P_<!t1L:.. QS!m9Jlt!2o.!22Q..BS.Q..::..EteP_arg IQ ry_qp_e.@ti_m-':!, 5 of9 I 0/25/2013 4:57 PM

20 Safety and Health Regulations for Construction / oshaweb/ owastand.display _standard _grou Stairs passagewavs and ladd!;llii~ :_(:hu~ REillJ~gj_gfm!.'!tt!J@~.ttlr.Q!.!gtLftQQr QQeDlOQS, Removal of walls. masonrv sections and chimneys..1926,a5_5-=---.m_ao!!alr.e.m_oy_a_!_gf_floors., Removal of walls floors and material with ~ Storage. 194.!i-.!!.S _!1f!.m9J@J...QE.~eLl:;9Il_~1DLGti9A Mechanical demolition Selective demolition by explosives. l'lf.t;i_subpart_ll.:_el?~_l}g_ml_9 the_t,j_~gf_~.pjillil'!!i! GenernLR.[QYis\gns Blaster qualifications. J.32~9Q2_:_S1l_ ce transoort_qtion_qf_ex_pjg;:;j.y_~" Underaround transportation of explosives Storage of explosives and blasting agents. J2.f_Q,905 _- Loa_iij_ng _9_f_!!_XRiosiy~_Q[ blastiag_g_g~l}~, Initiation of explosive charoes-electric ~ J.92Q._9QZ_~_..!J.~.. 9L~l~.!Yl!1~~ ,9.0.fL: I.,Lse of_q. ;Qfi?J;i_v_g c_p_nt Firing the blast lQ:.lQSR.~I;iQ!U!.ft.e.Lb.IP..s1ing,, Misfires. 12.~912- Underwater blasting. 1922,9..U..-.Jlla ;ing in excavatiqo w_ork yru;!_er C.QDJ.Pr:e.lilieP 9_i.r, Definitions aoplicable to this subpart 1926 Subpart V - Power Transmission and Distribution.t2.2!i25.12_:_~ne@LrgguiremJW_~ 1226:,2.:SL.I. ls anci_ri9tectlye s:g_ujp1ij_e.ij.t, Mechanical eqij.iq.roent Mai~I@JlHmdJliJ..Q, Ground.ing_for protection of employees Overhem.L!.l!:la~ 1 1_2 _,_9.J:Q.:JJ.o.d_groro.!:-l..D.d_Jlo~, Construction in eneraized substations :_.!;~rni:!Lioo!Ll:mJ~_QP.t a;~ :?.2...:.1Jnem.sm:s.J:!QQ~ _Qe.ll -_sa_re_ty_s!lap_s. gru!.!a.oys!.r.d~ Definitions applicable to this suboart S!!9P.f.lJ.t.W_:::_R_Q!Lqy_~_r_q_~tive_SJ;ruQ;!l@_~;,Qye..tb~.d_e[Qtection l~_9_.s.!:-l_b.p.9r.t1\i-..8qp 6 :l\pq!id9lx_ll._tq_s_i)..qp.2...rt.w.... :.:.. fi9...l!r_g_ _W:H1hr:9J!9b_W:::l.S Rollover orotective str11ctures CROPSl for material handling eauipment _lll01 - M.loim.Ym_Qe._rfQLm?_llC.f:_q];eria fpr_r_otrqver_p.rq.tg_(;ti.y.lil~ll,!j;.t!jres fql@j;jgjlq~q_grfl_p~a;,_lqgper!?,_j!m:~ graders _ad.p_crawler tracl;q[~ _l22_6.10_q_f..:..p.j.q.t.g)_~_.f@@_s_(_m!l:_qv s:r Q[Q_~!i'Le_!~jJ!J.~t.t.t(tl.$,_l!.D.9.W..!l.2::iJ~QE_SJJQ!'_.W_b~!:h'Pg ggrkwt!jrglq_rutinduwial t.@ctors _y!'@ in constructiol' Overhead protection for operators of aoricultural and industrial tractnrs. 1,_2,?_2 Sub!@t~_:::_ LaQQ_~ 192.,!QSJL:.2W.P _gp plication._.91l!lq_ejio!j:jqd.$.i!.qpjlq.!ble to this subpart General requirements. 191_ :.Stairw_qy~ 1926_.1(!5_3 - lq_q_d_!;!_l?., freservedl 192Q,lQ2.~..:.LB..!!e..1Y..e.9J 192Q,_lQ2_Q.:_L~~.GleQJ [Reservedl l2#:6.l_q.!_5_f.l~.1re.~!ye.qj 6 of9 10/25/2013 4:57PM