29 C.F.R. § 1915.3
Responsibility
(a) The responsibility for compliance with the regulations of this part is placed upon “employers” as defined in § 1915.4.
(b) This part does not apply to owners, operators, agents or masters of vessels unless such persons are acting as “employers.” However, this part is not intended to relieve owners, operators, agents or masters of vessels who are not “employers” from responsibilities or duties now placed upon them by law, regulation or custom.
(c) The responsibilities placed upon the competent person herein shall be deemed to be the responsibilities of the employer.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1983–2017 · leading case: Donald W. Elberg v. Mobil Oil Corp., 967 F.2d 1146 (7th Cir. 1992).
Donald W. Elberg v. Mobil Oil Corp., 967 F.2d 1146 (7th Cir. 1992). “29 C.F.R. § 1915.3 (b). Moreover, OSHA regulations may be relevant evidence as to whether a particular condition creates an unreasonable risk of harm.”
Lance E. Farr v. Nc Mach. Co., a Washington Corp., 186 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 1999). “§ 654 (a)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 1915.3 (a). . Irish v. United States, 225 F.”
In Re the Complaint of Knudsen, 710 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (S.D. Ala. 2010). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1915.3 (b). The Supreme Court has placed a duty to vessel owners if they “fail to exercise due care to avoid exposing longshoremen to harm from hazards they may encounter in areas, or from equipment, under the active control of the vessel during the stevedoring…”
Allen Carlos Woodruff v. United States, 710 F.2d 128 (4th Cir. 1983). “Part 1915] does not apply to owners, operators, agents or masters of vessels unless such persons are acting as “employers.” However, this part is not intended to relieve owners, operators, agents or masters of vessels who are not “employers” from responsibilities or duties now…”
Ralston v. San Juan Excursions, Inc., 252 F. App'x 180 (9th Cir. 2007). “1994) (recounting view of plaintiffs expert that the extremely unusual and hazardous condition on that ship “would not be something that even an experienced longshore worker would be looking for or anticipate”).”
Cruz v. United States, 247 F. Supp. 3d 1138 (S.D. Cal. 2017). “2007) (emphasis in original) 29 C.F.R. § 1915.3 (a), (b), 17 Peterson didn’t owe Cruz a duty to provide fall protection; .”
Vencius v. Morania Oil Tanker Corp., 210 A.D.2d 219 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994). “) applied to the defendant’s conduct. By their terms, however, the responsibility for compliance with the OSHA regulations lies with the employer, and not with the owner of the vessel (see, 29 CFR 1915.”
Romero v. Cajun Stabilizing Boats, Inc., 501 F. Supp. 2d 816 (W.D. La. 2007). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1915.3 . Under these regulations, it is the employers who are charged with compliance-not the shipowners.”
Witt v. Am. Trading Transp. Co., 820 F. Supp. 1249 (D. Or. 1993). “29 C.F.R. § 1915.3 (b). Plaintiff has pointed to nothing that would impose such an independent duty on defendants in this case.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.