(a) The prime contractor and any subcontractors may make their own arrangements with respect to obligations which might be more appropriately treated on a jobsite basis rather than individually. Thus, for example, the prime contractor and his subcontractors may wish to make an express agreement that the prime contractor or one of the subcontractors will provide all required first-aid or toilet facilities, thus relieving the subcontractors from the actual, but not any legal, responsibility (or, as the case may be, relieving the other subcontractors from this responsibility). In no case shall the prime contractor be relieved of overall responsibility for compliance with the requirements of this part for all work to be performed under the contract.
(b) By contracting for full performance of a contract subject to section 107 of the Act, the prime contractor assumes all obligations prescribed as employer obligations under the standards contained in this part, whether or not he subcontracts any part of the work.
(c) To the extent that a subcontractor of any tier agrees to perform any part of the contract, he also assumes responsibility for complying with the standards in this part with respect to that part. Thus, the prime contractor assumes the entire responsibility under the contract and the subcontractor assumes responsibility with respect to his portion of the work. With respect to subcontracted work, the prime contractor and any subcontractor or subcontractors shall be deemed to have joint responsibility.
(d) Where joint responsibility exists, both the prime contractor and his subcontractor or subcontractors, regardless of tier, shall be considered subject to the enforcement provisions of the Act.
Notes of Decisions
Leonard v. Com., Dept. of Transp., 771 A.2d 1238 (Pa. 2001).
· cites it 4× “" Leonard further cites 29 C.F.R. § 1926.16 (c), which states, "[T]he prime contractor assumes the entire responsibility under the contract and the subcontractor assumes responsibility with respect to his portion of the work.”
George v. Myers, 10 P.3d 265 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 6× “Plaintiff asserts that that reasoning was wrong because the trial court failed to *478 consider 29 CFR section 1926.16 (adopted by reference by OAR 437-003-0001(2)(g)), which, plaintiff contends, obligates general contractors to comply with all “employer” workplace safety…”
Solis v. Summit Contractors, Inc., 558 F.3d 815 (8th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 2× “12(a) did not adopt 29 C.F.R. § 1926.16 when it adopted the construction standards of the Construction Safety Act.”
Roberts v. Southwick, 614 N.E.2d 659 (Mass. 1993).
· cites it 4× “On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the judge erred in excluding from evidence certain Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, namely, 29 C.F.R. § 1926.16 , entitled "Rules of construction," § 1926.”
Praus Ex Rel. Praus v. MacK, 2001 ND 80 (N.D. 2001).
· cites it 2× “The trial court's ruling on liability was made in the context of Praus' argument that 29 C.F.R. § 1926.16 (a) supersedes North Dakota's adoption of several liability in N.”
Downs v. Steel & Craft Builders, Inc., 831 N.E.2d 92 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005).
· cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 1926.16 (c) (2004). Where joint responsibility exists, both contractors are subject to government enforcement.”
Hughes Gen. Contractors, Inc. v. Utah Labor Comm'n, 2014 UT 3 (Utah 2014).
· cites it 2× “Under federal law, moreover, the doctrine finds support in an express federal regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 1926.16 (c), a provision afforded deference by the courts under Chevron, U.”
McClure v. Denham, 162 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. App. 2005).
“Appellant cites 29 C.F.R. § 1926.16 (a) (2000), which provides, *353 The prime contractor and any subcontractors may make their own arrangements with respect to obligations which might be more appropriately treated on a jobsite basis rather than individually.”
Kovacevich v. Reg'l Produce Coop. Corp., 172 A.3d 80 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 2× “at 1241 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1926.16 (d)). The Supreme Court held the regulation inapplicable, explaining: , The regulations cited by ■ Leonard expressly state that they concern the scope of enforcement.”
Davenport v. Summit Contractors, Inc., 612 S.E.2d 239 (Va. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 3× “4 One of those omitted provisions, 29 C.F.R. § 1926.16 (b), states that “the prime contractor assumes all obligations prescribed as employer obligations under the standards contained in this part, whether or not he subcontracts any part of the work.”
Egan v. Atl. Richfield Co., 566 A.2d 1249 (Pa. 1989).
· cites it 3× “29 C.F.R. § 1926.16 . The rules of construction contained in 29 C.”
Lawson-Avila Constr., Inc. v. Stoutamire, 791 S.W.2d 584 (Tex. App. 1990).
“16 Rules of construction (a)The prime contractor and any subcontractors may make their own arrangements with respect to obligations which might be more appropriately treated on a jobsite basis rather than individually. Thus, for example, the prime contractor and his…”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1926.16(a) — 1 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.