C.F.R. » Title 29 » CHAPTER XVII—OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › PART 1926—SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION › Subpart E—Personal Protective and Life Saving Equipment

29 C.F.R. § 1926.105

Safety nets

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

(a) Safety nets shall be provided when workplaces are more than 25 feet above the ground or water surface, or other surfaces where the use of ladders, scaffolds, catch platforms, temporary floors, safety lines, or safety belts is impractical.

(b) Where safety net protection is required by this part, operations shall not be undertaken until the net is in place and has been tested.

(c)(1) Nets shall extend 8 feet beyond the edge of the work surface where employees are exposed and shall be installed as close under the work surface as practical but in no case more than 25 feet below such work surface. Nets shall be hung with sufficient clearance to prevent user's contact with the surfaces or structures below. Such clearances shall be determined by impact load testing.

(2) It is intended that only one level of nets be required for bridge construction.

(d) The mesh size of nets shall not exceed 6 inches by 6 inches. All new nets shall meet accepted performance standards of 17,500 foot-pounds minimum impact resistance as determined and certified by the manufacturers, and shall bear a label of proof test. Edge ropes shall provide a minimum breaking strength of 5,000 pounds.

(e) Forged steel safety hooks or shackles shall be used to fasten the net to its supports.

(f) Connections between net panels shall develop the full strength of the net.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 57 cases, 1973–2008 · leading case: Kelley v. Howard S. Wright Constr. Co., 582 P.2d 500 (Wash. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kelley v. Howard S. Wright Constr. Co., 582 P.2d 500 (Wash. 1978). · cites it 4× “29 CFR § 1926.105 (a). Plaintiff also introduced the Manual of Accident Prevention in Construction of the Associated General Contractors, of which Wright is a member.”
Ne. Erectors Ass'n of the BTEA v. Sec'y of Labor, Occupational Saf. & Health Admin., 62 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 1995). · cites it 2× “Similarly, 29 C.F.R. § 1926.105 (a), which applies to the construction industry in general, requires safety nets or equivalent protection for workplaces 25 feet or more above the ground.”
Leonard v. Com., Dept. of Transp., 771 A.2d 1238 (Pa. 2001). · cites it 2× “104 (safety lines); 29 C.F.R. § 1926.105 (safety nets). Whether there were in fact any violations of OSHA regulations and whether Leonard's injuries were proximately caused thereby are matters that are disputed by the parties.”
Corbesco, Inc. v. Elizabeth Dole, Sec'y, United States Dep't of Labor, & Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 926 F.2d 422 (5th Cir. 1991). · cites it 4× “Corbesco contends that its right to due process was violated because the regulation under which it was cited, 29 C.F.R. § 1926.105 (a), is a general one and fails to give an employer adequate notice that it must use a safety net when its employees are working on the flat roof of…”
A.J. McNulty & Co. v. Sec'y of Labor, 283 F.3d 328 (D.C. Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “See generally 29 C.F.R. § 1926.105 , id. § 1926.500 (1994).”
Perryman v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc., 628 N.E.2d 1240 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “Federal OSHA regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 1926.105 , requires that when workplaces are more than 25 feet above the ground and the use of ladders, scaffolds, catch platforms, temporary floors, or safety belts is impractical, nets extending out eight feet beyond the edge of the work…”
E & R Erectors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Labor, 107 F.3d 157 (3rd Cir. 1997). · cites it 4× “29 C.F.R. § 1926.105 (a) requires that fall protection measures be used when employees are working more than 25 feet above the ground.”
L. R. Willson & Sons, Inc. v. Raymond L. Donovan, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor, 685 F.2d 664 (D.C. Cir. 1982). · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 1926.105 (a). 5 . Willson also claims that the administrative law judge improperly relied on inadmissible hearsay evidence and that the citation was improperly characterized as willful.”
R.P. Carbone Constr. Co. v. The Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n Alexis M. Herman, United States Sec'y of Labor, 166 F.3d 815 (6th Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “Based on the OSHA inspector’s findings, the Secretary of Labor issued a $1,500 penalty on the ground that RPC had not complied with the OSHA safety requirements outlined in 29 C.F.R. § 1926.105 (a). The ALJ affirmed the citation and penalty, holding RPC liable as a general…”
William E. Brock, Sec'y of Labor v. Williams Enter. of Georgia, Inc., & Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 832 F.2d 567 (11th Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “JOHNSON, Circuit Judge: The Secretary of Labor petitions for review of an order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (“Commission”) vacating a citation imposed by the Secretary of Labor under 29 C.F.R. § 1926.105 (a) against Williams Enterprises of Georgia,…”
Peter J. Brennan, Sec'y of Labor v. S. Contractors Serv. & Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, No. 73-2682 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5th Cir. See Isbell Enter., Inc. v. Cas. Co. Of New York, 5th Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I, 492 F.2d 498 (5th Cir. 1974). · cites it 6× “660(b), 1 the Secretary of Labor appeals from a final order of the Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission (the Commission) which found that regulation 29 C.F.R. 1926.105(a) (1973), under which Southern Contractors Service Company (Southern) had been charged with a…”
Raymond J. Donovan, Sec'y of Labor v. Williams Enter., Inc., Williams Enter., Inc. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 744 F.2d 170 (D.C. Cir. 1984). · cites it 2× “750 (b)(2)(i) and the general standard in 29 C.F.R. § 1926.105 (a) (1983). Section 1926.”
Show all 57 citing cases →
— 29 C.F.R. § 1926.105(a) — 18 cases
Peter J. Brennan, Sec'y of Labor v. S. Contractors Serv. & Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, No. 73-2682 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5th Cir. See Isbell Enter., Inc. v. Cas. Co. Of New York, 5th Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I, 492 F.2d 498 (5th Cir. 1974). “660(b), 1 the Secretary of Labor appeals from a final order of the Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission (the Commission) which found that regulation 29 C.F.R. 1926.105(a) (1973), under which Southern Contractors Service Company (Southern) had been charged with a…”
Peter J. Brennan, Sec'y of Labor v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n & J. W. Bounds (Pearl Steel Erection Co.), 488 F.2d 337 (5th Cir. 1973).
Brennan v. S. Contractors Serv., 492 F.2d 498 (5th Cir. 1974).
6 O.S.H. Cas.(bna) 1751, 1978 O.S.H.D. (Cch) P 22,840 Ray Marshall, Sec'y of Labor v. Sw. Indus. Contractors & Riggers, Inc. & Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 576 F.2d 42 (5th Cir. 1978).
Manganas Painting Co. v. Sec'y of Labor, 273 F.3d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
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.