(a) General requirements. The Secretary shall, pursuant to section 107(f) of the Act, establish and supervise programs for the education and training of employers and employees in the recognition, avoidance and prevention of unsafe conditions in employments covered by the act.
(b) Employer responsibility. (1) The employer should avail himself of the safety and health training programs the Secretary provides.
(2) The employer shall instruct each employee in the recognition and avoidance of unsafe conditions and the regulations applicable to his work environment to control or eliminate any hazards or other exposure to illness or injury.
(3) Employees required to handle or use poisons, caustics, and other harmful substances shall be instructed regarding the safe handling and use, and be made aware of the potential hazards, personal hygiene, and personal protective measures required.
(4) In job site areas where harmful plants or animals are present, employees who may be exposed shall be instructed regarding the potential hazards, and how to avoid injury, and the first aid procedures to be used in the event of injury.
(5) Employees required to handle or use flammable liquids, gases, or toxic materials shall be instructed in the safe handling and use of these materials and made aware of the specific requirements contained in subparts D, F, and other applicable subparts of this part.
[44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979; 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, as amended at 80 FR 25518, May 4, 2015]
Notes of Decisions
Ettinger v. Triangle-Pac. Corp., 799 A.2d 95 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002).
· cites it 6× “(Appellants' Brief at 4.) PSI called Aufiero as an expert witness "to aid in the [jury's] determination of whether the oven.”
Compass Env't, Inc. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 663 F.3d 1164 (10th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 8× “Specifically, the Commission held that Compass violated 29 C.F.R. § 1926.21 (b)(2) by failing to train a now-deceased employee to recognize and avoid the electrocution hazard presented by a high-voltage overhead power line at his worksite in Fort Lupton, Colorado.”
Roberts v. Southwick, 614 N.E.2d 659 (Mass. 1993).
· cites it 4× “The OSHA regulations outline, inter alia, the defendant's duty to train and to educate employees in the recognition and avoidance of all unsafe conditions at a work site, 29 C.F.R. § 1926.21 (b) (2), as well as to conduct frequent and regular inspections, § 1920.”
Praus Ex Rel. Praus v. MacK, 2001 ND 80 (N.D. 2001).
· cites it 2× “20 , regarding accident prevention responsibilities, and 29 C.F.R. § 1926.21 , regarding duties to instruct employees of unsafe conditions.”
United States v. Timothy Allen Wenner, 351 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2003).
“1999) (defining “enclosed land” as “land that is actually enclosed and surrounded by fences”); 29 C.F.R. § 1926.21 (b)(6)(h) (defining “enclosed space” for safety and health regulations as including “open top spaces more than four feet in depth”).”
Chao v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 401 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 2005).
· cites it 2× “The general construction training standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1926.21 (b)(2), 5 which requires employers to “instruct each employee in the recognition and avoidance of unsafe conditions,” has been interpreted as being citable on a per-employee basis.”
Danis-Shook Jt. Venture Xxv v. Sec'y of Labor, 319 F.3d 805 (6th Cir. 2003).
· cites it 2× “First, the Commission found that Danis-Shook violated 29 C.F.R. § 1926.21 (b)(2) in failing to instruct employees in the recognition and avoidance of the hazards associated with entering a basin filled with accumulated water.”
Lyondell Petrochemical Co. v. Fluor Daniel, Inc., 888 S.W.2d 547 (Tex. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “Lyondell's other theory was that Fluor Daniel's training program was deficient under 29 C.F.R. § 1926.21 (b)(2) (1992), promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and was therefore negligence per se.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1926.21(b)(2) — 10 cases
— 29 C.F.R. § 1926.21(b)(6)(i) — 2 cases
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.