Generally, an employer is responsible for ensuring that its workplace is safe and, therefore, for any violations of OSHA standards. The instant case implicates a narrow exception to that rule: An employer may rely on a specialty contractor to ensure compliance with safety standards within the purview of the contractor’s expertise. An employer will be “justified in relying upon the specialist to protect against hazards related to the specialist’s expertise so long as the reliance is reasonable and the employer has no reason to foresee that the work will be performed unsafely.” In January 2017, Manua’s Inc. hired APECS, a construction contractor with which it had done business in the past, to remove steel beams from four shipping containers by crane. During the unloading, the APECS crane operator touched an overhead power line with the crane, causing the electrocution of three Manua employees and injury to several others. Manua contends that OSHA erred in failing to rule that Manua was not responsible for the cited violations because it reasonably relied on APECS. Following the January 2017 accident, an OSHA inspector conducted an inspection and cited Manua for four “serious” violations of OSHA regulations—namely, failing to (1) define the work area; (2) take precautions necessitated by the fact that the crane could come within 20 feet of the power line; (3) train the employees assigned to the rigging work on safety hazards and proper procedures while working near power lines; and (4) ensure that the site supervisor employee met training and qualification requirements for a signal person. OSHA assessed the Company a penalty of

$35,492.

This was the first time that Manua had hired APECS to do crane work and it had assumed, without inquiry, that APECS would be responsible for safety precautions. Do you believe that Manua’s reliance on APECS was reasonable? How should the court rule?