29 C.F.R. § 1926.955

Portable ladders and platforms

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

(a) General. Requirements for portable ladders contained in subpart X of this part apply in addition to the requirements of this section, except as specifically noted in paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) Special ladders and platforms. Portable ladders used on structures or conductors in conjunction with overhead line work need not meet § 1926.1053(b)(5)(i) and (b)(12). Portable ladders and platforms used on structures or conductors in conjunction with overhead line work shall meet the following requirements:

(1) Design load. In the configurations in which they are used, portable platforms shall be capable of supporting without failure at least 2.5 times the maximum intended load.

(2) Maximum load. Portable ladders and platforms may not be loaded in excess of the working loads for which they are designed.

(3) Securing in place. Portable ladders and platforms shall be secured to prevent them from becoming dislodged.

(4) Intended use. Portable ladders and platforms may be used only in applications for which they are designed.

(c) Conductive ladders. Portable metal ladders and other portable conductive ladders may not be used near exposed energized lines or equipment. However, in specialized high-voltage work, conductive ladders shall be used when the employer demonstrates that nonconductive ladders would present a greater hazard to employees than conductive ladders.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1978–2014 · leading case: Bowlin Grp., LLC v. Sec'y of Labor, 437 S.W.3d 738 (Ky. Ct. App. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bowlin Grp., LLC v. Sec'y of Labor, 437 S.W.3d 738 (Ky. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 6× “The Secretary of Labor cited Bowlin for failing to comply with 29 C.F.R. § 1926.955 (c)(3). That regulation requires employers: Where there is a possibility of the conductor [in this case, the new line] accidentally contacting an energized circuit or receiving a dangerous…”

Marsha Jandro, Adm'x of the Est. of Robert Dean Jandro, Deceased v. Ohio Edison Co., L.E. Myers Co., 167 F.3d 309 (6th Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “First, the estate claims that Myers failed to hold the on-site safety meeting as required by 29 C.F.R. § 1926.955 (c)(2). It claims that if a formal meeting had been held at the site, the inadequate grounding procedures that contributed to Jandro’s death could have been avoided.”

Wisconsin Elec. Power Co. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n & the Sec'y of Labor, 567 F.2d 735 (7th Cir. 1978). · cites it 2× “952 (c)(2), the applicable standard, and that complainant erred in citing respondent for a violation of a standard which did not apply, 29 C.F.R. § 1926.955 (a)(6)(ii). An exposition of the applicable parts of the standards as they appear to an employer trying to determine what…”

Floyd S. Pike Elec. Contractor, Inc. v. Comm'r, Dep't of Labor & Indus., 281 S.E.2d 804 (Va. 1981). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1926.955 (c)(3) and (c)(5).”

Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 737 F.2d 350 (3rd Cir. 1984). · cites it 4× “OSHA charged that PP & L had failed to comply with the “grounding” regulations set forth at 29 C.F.R. § 1926.955 (a)(6)(ii) (1983), resulting in the death of a PP & L lineman.”

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.