29 C.F.R. § 1926.28
Personal protective equipment
(a) The employer is responsible for requiring the wearing of appropriate personal protective equipment in all operations where there is an exposure to hazardous conditions or where this part indicates the need for using such equipment to reduce the hazards to the employees.
(b) Regulations governing the use, selection, and maintenance of personal protective and lifesaving equipment are described under subpart E of this part.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56
cases, 1976–2020 · leading case: New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. v. Sec'y of Labor & Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 88 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 1996).
New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. v. Sec'y of Labor & Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 88 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 1996). “Citation and Complaint As a result of the compliance officer’s report, the respondent Secretary of Labor issued a citation alleging a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.28 , a regulation the Secretary had promulgated as head of OSHA.”
Ray Evers Welding Co., Petitioner, v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, Respondent, 625 F.2d 726 (6th Cir. 1980). “§ 654 (a)(2)) for neglecting to require its employees to use appropriate personal protection equipment (safety belts and lanyards) allegedly mandated under the Secretary’s regulation 29 CFR § 1926.28 (a), 2 and assessing a civil penalty of $200.”
Faultless Div., Bliss & Laughlin Indus., Inc., a Corp. v. Sec'y of Labor, & Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 674 F.2d 1177 (7th Cir. 1982). “’’ In my view, that finding does not address, let alone resolve, the question whether the employer should reasonably have recognized the applicability of section 1910.212 prior to the date it was found in violation thereof.”
Daniel Int'l Corp. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n & the Sec'y of Labor, 683 F.2d 361 (11th Cir. 1982). “petitions this court to review an order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission citing the company for a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.28 (a). 1 The Commission maintains that Daniel’s failure to take all steps necessary to insure that its employees wear personal…”
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). “” See 29 C.F.R. § 1926.28 (a), supra note 4. The record shows that the compliance officer who issued the citations was at the Willson worksite for approximately one hour, 21 observed the employee on the ninth level for only ten minutes, 22 and did not herself go on the building.”
Frank Coluccio Constr. Co. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 329 P.3d 91 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “Finally, Spancrete and McNulty are narrow federal decisions that address enforcement of a specific federal regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 1926.28 (a). There, the courts held that because of 29 C.”
William E. Brock, Sec'y of Labor v. The L.E. Myers Co., High Voltage Div., & Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 818 F.2d 1270 (6th Cir. 1987). “However, the Secretary appeals only the Commission’s ruling with respect to the citation for “serious” 1 violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.28 (a), and we will confine our discussion to that issue only.”
Brooks v. Rebarco, Inc., 372 S.E.2d 342 (N.C. Ct. App. 1988). “28(a) as charged in the citation, OSH had to prove that under the circumstances which existed a reasonably prudent employer would have recognized that carrying heavy objects above their unprotected feet was hazardous to the employees doing the carrying and would require them to…”
Hoffman Constr. Co. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n & John T. Dunlop, Sec'y of the U. S. Dep't of Labor, 546 F.2d 281 (9th Cir. 1976). “§ 658 (a) and § 666(j), 1 the Secretary issued a citation to Hoffman for a “serious violation” of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.28 (a) (1972), and levied an $850 fine.”
Donovan v. Royal Logging Co., 645 F.2d 822 (9th Cir. 1981). “*825 On September 10th, the Secretary issued a citation to Royal, alleging a serious violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.28 (a). 1 On or about noon, August 25, 1975, the employer failed to require the wearing of appropriate personal protective equipment in an operation where there was…”
Long v. Deere & Co., 715 P.2d 1023 (Kan. 1986). “29 C.F.R. § 1926.28 (1985). The majority today cast the manufacturer in the role of insurer by requiring the manufacturer to warn an employee of the purchaser of the necessity to wear a seat belt when operating a crawler-tractor with a ROPS, when that responsibility should be…”
Raymond J. Donovan, Sec'y of Labor v. Oil, Chem., & Atomic Workers Int'l Union & Its Local 4-23, 718 F.2d 1341 (5th Cir. 1983). “25(a)); (2) failure to protect employees against falls (29 C.F.R. 1926.28(a) and 1926.105(a)); (3) failure to guard an abrasive disk (29 C.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1926.28(A) — 1 case
Tri-State Roofing & Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 685 F.2d 878 (4th Cir. 1982).
— 29 C.F.R. § 1926.28(a) — 10 cases
Brooks v. Rebarco, Inc., 372 S.E.2d 342 (N.C. Ct. App. 1988). “28(a) as charged in the citation, OSH had to prove that under the circumstances which existed a reasonably prudent employer would have recognized that carrying heavy objects above their unprotected feet was hazardous to the employees doing the carrying and would require them to…”
Faultless Div., Bliss & Laughlin Indus., Inc., a Corp. v. Sec'y of Labor, & Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 674 F.2d 1177 (7th Cir. 1982). “’’ In my view, that finding does not address, let alone resolve, the question whether the employer should reasonably have recognized the applicability of section 1910.212 prior to the date it was found in violation thereof.”
Raymond J. Donovan, Sec'y of Labor v. Oil, Chem., & Atomic Workers Int'l Union & Its Local 4-23, 718 F.2d 1341 (5th Cir. 1983). “25(a)); (2) failure to protect employees against falls (29 C.F.R. 1926.28(a) and 1926.105(a)); (3) failure to guard an abrasive disk (29 C.”
Irwin Steel Erectors, Inc., Petitioner, v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n Et Al., Respondent, 574 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1978).
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). “” See 29 C.F.R. § 1926.28 (a), supra note 4. The record shows that the compliance officer who issued the citations was at the Willson worksite for approximately one hour, 21 observed the employee on the ninth level for only ten minutes, 22 and did not herself go on the building.”
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.