C.F.R. » Title 29 » CHAPTER XVII—OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › PART 1918—SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR LONGSHORING › Subpart H—Handling Cargo

29 C.F.R. § 1918.83

Stowed cargo; tiering and breaking down

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) When necessary to protect personnel working in a hold, the employer shall secure or block stowed cargo that is likely to shift or roll.

(b) In breaking down stowed cargo, precautions shall be taken to prevent remaining cargo from falling.

(c) Employees trimming bulk cargo shall be checked in and out by the job boss. Before securing any reefer compartment, a check shall be made to ensure that no employee remains inside. Frequent checks shall be made to ensure the safety of any employee working alone in a tank or cargo compartment.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1973–1995 · leading case: Carmen Di Rago v. Am. Exp. Lines, Inc., 636 F.2d 860 (3d Cir. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Carmen Di Rago v. Am. Exp. Lines, Inc., 636 F.2d 860 (3d Cir. 1981). · cites it 3× “” 29 C.F.R. § 1918.83 (b) (1979). However, the regulation does not by its terms preclude a finding that shipowner negligence also contributed to an accident by creating a latent danger.”
Lacaze v. Olendorff, 526 F.2d 1213 (5th Cir. 1976). · cites it 2× “” Safety and Health Regulations for Longshoring, 29 CFR § 1918.83 (a). Evidence indicates that the copper slabs were not blocked or secured; moreover, it appears that the cargo fell on several occasions throughout the evening.”
Milton Marant v. Farrell Lines, Inc., 550 F.2d 142 (3d Cir. 1977). “The OSHA regulation relating to stowed cargo would seem to be of special relevance to the case at bar: 29 C.F.R. § 1918.83 Stowed cargo, tiering and breaking down.”
Am. Smelting & Refining Co. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 501 F.2d 504 (8th Cir. 1974). “29 C.F.R. §§ 1918.83 (a) and 1910.93a. The Petitioner’s contention, though advanced by arguable but loose legislative interpretation, would have us accept a result that would ignore the advances of industrial scientists, technologists, and hygienists, and also ignore the plain…”
McCarthy v. Silver Bulk Shipping Ltd., 487 F. Supp. 1021 (E.D. Pa. 1980). “When defendant sought to introduce Occupational Safety and Health Act regulations (OSHA), 29 CFR § 1918.83 to establish the stevedore’s negligence, I refused to admit them inasmuch as I held that proof of the stevedore’s negligence was not relevant.”
Couch v. Cro-Marine Transp., Inc., 44 F.3d 319 (5th Cir. 1995). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1918.83 (a)-(b). 7 . By way of analogy, the district court observed that a stevedore may be held liable for cargo damage due to its negligence.”
Texports Stevedore Co. v. Sec'y of Labor, 484 F.2d 465 (5th Cir. 1973). “Texports was cited by the Secretary of Labor for a serious violation of the Act for failing to comply with the provisions of 29 C.F.R. 1918.83(b) which required it to take sufficient precautions when necessary to prevent the remaining cargo from falling.”
29 C.F.R. § 1918.83(a): 1 case
Lacaze v. Olendorff, 526 F.2d 1213 (5th Cir. 1976). “” Safety and Health Regulations for Longshoring, 29 CFR § 1918.83 (a). Evidence indicates that the copper slabs were not blocked or secured; moreover, it appears that the cargo fell on several occasions throughout the evening.”
29 C.F.R. § 1918.83(b): 1 case
Texports Stevedore Co. v. Sec'y of Labor, 484 F.2d 465 (5th Cir. 1973). “Texports was cited by the Secretary of Labor for a serious violation of the Act for failing to comply with the provisions of 29 C.F.R. 1918.83(b) which required it to take sufficient precautions when necessary to prevent the remaining cargo from falling.”
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.