The employer shall not permit employees to board or leave any vessel, except a barge or river towboat, until all of the applicable requirements of this subpart have been met.
(a) If possible, the vessel's means of access shall be located so that suspended loads do not pass over it. In any event, suspended loads shall not be passed over the means of access while employees or others are on it.
(b) When the upper end of the means of access rests on or is flush with the top of the bulwark, substantial steps, properly secured, trimmed and equipped with at least one substantial handrail, 33 inches (.84 m) in height, shall be provided between the top of the bulwark and the deck.
(c) The means of access shall be illuminated for its full length in accordance with § 1918.92.
2
2 § 1918.92 requires, along with other requirements, an average light intensity of five foot-candles (54 lux).
Notes of Decisions
Anthony J. Melerine, Jr. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 659 F.2d 706 (5th Cir. 1981).
“21 (f) (now codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1918.21 (f)). 20 . Melerine impugns this assertion elsewhere in his brief when he says that “the inherent lack of safety in the lifting operation .”
Donald Davis v. Partenreederei M.S. Normannia, 657 F.2d 1048 (9th Cir. 1981).
“29 C.F.R. § 1918.21 (i). The shipowner properly raised the issue of this OSHA regulation, and the following instruction was given to the jury in this case, at the owner’s request: The sole responsibility for compliance with the regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health…”
Eugene H. Bandeen v. United Carriers (Panama), Inc., 712 F.2d 1336 (9th Cir. 1983).
“29 C.F.R. § 1918.21 (i) (1982). Although only the stevedore was directly accountable for violating the regulation, the shipowner was held partially liable for injuries to a longshoreman struck by landing cargo as he walked off the gangway.”
Jackson v. Egyptian Navigation Co., 222 F. Supp. 2d 700 (E.D. Pa. 2002).
“Defendant has made other arguments which the Court does not find determinative in deciding to grant summary judgment in favor of Defendant. Defendant contends that DRS, not the shipowner, violated numerous Occupational Safety & Health Administration ("OSHA”) regulations by…”
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.