Safety is a critical part of any roofing job, but when a safety violation happens, who should be held responsible?

“You could still be held liable for their safety violations if OSHA believes that you are responsible for their safety,” he said.

Challenging OSHA’s Prime Contractor Safety Obligation Stance

Prime contractors can be held liable for safety violations at a job site, even if they are never present to conduct the work. Trent Cotney, a partner at Adams and Reese, explains how contractors may be able to challenge certain aspects of this stance and how to mitigate liability as a prime contractor.

In this Legal Insights episode, Cotney explains several strategies contractors can take to mitigate that liability, such as having a subcontractor agreement that ensures the subcontractor is responsible for handling safety on the job.

Regarding the policy’s interpretation, Cotney said he has personally challenged OSHA’s concept of a prime contractor being responsible for safety despite not being on the job in court, and believes the current administration and judges are receptive to such challenges.

“I think clearly if I'm on site and I'm an exposing contractor and I'm causing the problem, then yeah, I should be cited. But I think that there should be a carve-out if I'm not actively involved in a subcontractor’s safety,” he said.

Cotney also dives into state-level non-compete laws. Last April, the Florida Senate passed the Florida CHOICE Act, which will strengthen the enforcement of non-compete agreements. Gov. Ron DeSantis is expected to sign the bill, which would go into effect in July.

“After the FTC's ban on non-competes was lifted, you've seen some states look to enact their own bans via state law, and then you've seen other states like Florida go pro-business and say, ‘Yeah, give them the right to review it. Give them a period of time to get with their attorney. If they sign it, they sign it,’” Cotney says.

 View the full episode here, or listen to the podcast version here.