Legal practice questions

Answer: B) Extending the contractor's coverage to the owner

• AIncorrect. That isn't the purpose.
• BCorrect. It's a contractual risk transfer.
• CIncorrect. Safety duties remain.
• DIncorrect. It supplements coverage.

Answer: B) Seek compulsory process, such as an ex parte inspection warrant

If an employer refuses entry, the CSHO ends or limits the inspection, and OSHA may seek compulsory process such as an inspection warrant under 29 CFR 1903.4.

• AIncorrect. An employer may require a warrant before it allows entry, so a refusal is not cited as a violation. Under 29 CFR 1903.4, the refusal is reported to the Area Director so that OSHA can seek compulsory process.
• BCorrect. Under 29 CFR 1903.4, the CSHO ends or limits the inspection and reports the refusal. OSHA may then seek compulsory process, which includes an ex parte application for an inspection warrant. This matches the 1978 Marshall v. Barlow's decision.
• CIncorrect. When entry is refused, 29 CFR 1903.4(a) requires the CSHO to end the inspection or limit it to areas where there is no objection. A warrantless inspection over the employer's objection is not allowed.
• DIncorrect. OSHRC rules on contested citations and penalties; it does not issue inspection warrants. OSHA seeks compulsory process with the Regional Solicitor's involvement, for example by applying to a court for a warrant.

Answer: A) $140,000

Comparative negligence reduces a plaintiff's damages in proportion to their own share of fault, so a plaintiff found 30% at fault recovers 70% of $200,000, or $140,000.

• ACorrect. Under pure comparative negligence, damages are reduced in proportion to the plaintiff's share of fault: $200,000 × (1 − 0.30) = $140,000.
• BIncorrect. This ignores the worker's 30% share of fault. Comparative negligence reduces the award by that share.
• CIncorrect. A complete bar to recovery is the result under traditional contributory negligence. A 30% share of fault also stays below the 50% or 51% bars used in modified comparative negligence states.
• DIncorrect. $60,000 is the worker's own 30% share of the fault. It is the amount the award is reduced by, not the amount the worker recovers.

Answer: B) Imminent danger situations

• AIncorrect. Those are lower priority.
• BCorrect. Fatalities and serious injuries come next.
• CIncorrect. Those are lower priority.
• DIncorrect. Consultation is separate.

Answer: A) Controlling employer

• ACorrect. It must exercise reasonable care to prevent violations.
• BIncorrect. That's whose workers are exposed.
• CIncorrect. That's who fixes hazards.
• DIncorrect. That's who caused the hazard.

Answer: C) Do the guarding review and recommend that a qualified cybersecurity specialist evaluate the control system

The BCSP Code of Ethics says certificants should take on assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical field. For work outside that field, they should refer it to a qualified expert rather than accept it.

• AIncorrect. A safety credential does not cover every technical field. The Code says to take on assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical field involved.
• BIncorrect. A waiver does not make the professional competent. Certifying adequacy without the needed qualifications still breaks the Code's competence standard and may put people at risk.
• CCorrect. The professional stays within their area of competence, which the Code requires, and the client still gets the cybersecurity question handled by someone qualified.
• DIncorrect. Signing off based on another party's claims, without the ability to judge them, is not an honest or competent professional opinion. The Code requires competence in the specific technical field.

Answer: A) 30 days

• ACorrect. Prompt filing is important.
• BIncorrect. That's too long.
• CIncorrect. That's too long.
• DIncorrect. That's too short.

Answer: B) Periodically evaluating how well the contractor fulfills its safety obligations under the standard

Under 29 CFR 1910.119(h)(2), the host employer must evaluate a contractor's safety record when selecting it, inform it of process hazards, explain the emergency action plan, control access, periodically evaluate its performance, and keep a contract employee injury log. Training contract employees and documenting that training are contract employer duties under (h)(3).

• AIncorrect. Under 1910.119(h)(3)(i), training contract employees in safe work practices is the contract employer's duty.
• BCorrect. 1910.119(h)(2)(v) requires the host employer to periodically evaluate how well contract employers meet their obligations under paragraph (h)(3).
• CIncorrect. Under 1910.119(h)(3)(iii), keeping records of contract employee training is the contract employer's duty.
• DIncorrect. Under 1910.119(h)(3)(v), the contract employer must tell the host employer about unique hazards its work creates or uncovers.

Answer: B) It has no direct or immediate relationship to safety or health

• AIncorrect. That would be serious or willful.
• BCorrect. No penalty is usually proposed.
• CIncorrect. That's willful.
• DIncorrect. That's repeat.

Answer: D) Damages, because the worker suffered no actual injury or loss

To prove negligence, a plaintiff must show four things: duty, breach of that duty, causation and damages. Without actual injury or loss, a negligence claim fails even when duty, breach and causation are present.

• AIncorrect. A duty of care can exist without an employment or contractual relationship. A general contractor that controls the site owes a duty of reasonable care to people working there, so this element is likely met.
• BIncorrect. Leaving the opening unguarded, contrary to site rules and the applicable standard, falls below the standard of care. How long it was unguarded does not erase the breach.
• CIncorrect. The fall happened directly because of the unguarded opening, so there is a link between the breach and the event. Any carelessness by the worker might reduce recovery, but it does not remove causation.
• DCorrect. Negligence requires actual harm, such as physical injury, medical costs or lost wages. A near miss with no injury or loss leaves nothing to compensate, so the damages element fails.