Fall Protection and Multi-Employer Liability on a Three-Story Frame
A three-story wood-frame apartment building is under construction in Danbury. On a Tuesday morning, an OSHA compliance officer arrives after a complaint. She observes framers working on the third-floor deck and top plates with no guardrail, no personal fall arrest, and an unprotected edge 11 feet above grade. Two extension ladders do not extend 3 feet above the landing and are set on soft fill. A crew of six is using a pneumatic nail gun with no eye protection. A subcontractor's employees are working under the general contractor's direction on the same deck. The GC's superintendent says fall protection is the framers' responsibility and that the crew has been doing this for 20 years. The GC has a written safety program but no competent-person inspections for the past three weeks. The project has 14 workers on site, and the GC is the controlling contractor.
1. Identify likely OSHA violations, the applicable subparts, and who can be cited under the multi-employer policy.
Read the worked answer
Likely violations include:
- Fall protection. Employees on the third-floor deck and top plates at 11 feet with no guardrail or personal fall arrest violate 1926.501(b)(1), the unprotected sides and edges requirement with a 6-foot trigger. The GC is the controlling contractor and had actual knowledge through its superintendent; under OSHA's multi-employer citation policy it can be cited as a controlling employer even though the framers are a subcontractor. The framing subcontractor is the exposing and creating employer.
- Ladders. Extension ladders must extend at least 3 feet above the landing and be on a firm footing under 1926.1053(b). Both conditions are violated.
- Eye protection. Pneumatic nailers require eye protection under 1926.102.
- Training and inspection. No competent-person inspections for three weeks undercuts the written program and supports a failure-to-train or inadequate-inspection theory.
The superintendent's 20-years statement is not a defense; knowledge plus failure to correct is the controlling-employer test.
2. Classify the likely citations and discuss the penalty factors the GC should expect.
Read the worked answer
Fall protection is likely a serious violation because the hazard could cause death or serious injury and the employer knew or should have known. If the evidence shows intentional disregard, such as continuing work after knowledge and a stated policy of ignoring fall protection, OSHA could allege willful. The ladder and PPE items are likely serious or other-than-serious depending on exposure.
Penalty factors include gravity, employer size, good-faith history, and abatement speed. Statutory maxima are adjusted annually, so do not rely on a memorized dollar figure. The GC should contest only genuinely disputable elements, not the fall hazard. Contesting an obvious fall violation can damage credibility and forfeit abatement credit.
3. Recommend a corrective action plan with abatement verification.
Read the worked answer
Corrective plan:
- Stop work on the third-floor edges.
- Install guardrails or require personal fall arrest with anchorage, and verify by a competent person.
- Inspect and reset ladders on a stable base, extending 3 feet above the landing.
- Issue eye protection and enforce its use.
- Conduct daily competent-person inspections and document them.
- Hold a stand-down with the framing subcontractor and GC staff.
- Return abatement certification and photographs to OSHA.
The GC should also revise subcontract language to require fall protection plans and weekly safety audits. As controlling contractor, the GC cannot delegate its oversight duty entirely to the framing crew.