Safety Alert for Supervisors: 2/9/2026

Incident summary Even though he had an amp probe in his toolbelt, a crew member failed to test an electrical circuit before cutting a wire that was still energized. He won’t make that mistake again. What happened Assigned to splice temporary lighting circuit wiring into new wiring for a permanent circuit, a worker climbed through a 24-inch- diameter manway, descended a metal ladder attached to the inside of the manhole and positioned himself on the ladder facing the circuit conductors. Even though he had an amp probe in his toolbelt and company safety rules called for employees to always test circuits before touching them, the worker failed to verify whether the system was still energized. Instead, he pulled a pair of wire cutters from his toolbelt and started to cut a wire. The wire, which was part of a circuit that was still energized, contacted the back of the staffer’s right hand. Electrical current passed through his hand and exited through his right thigh, which was in contact with the metal ladder. A coworker who’d been observing his crew mate knocked him off the ladder away from the energized circuit. The colleague entered the manhole and carried out his coworker. Responders arrived a short time later and began to administer CPR. The victim was taken to a hospital, but he was declared dead 45 minutes after the incident. Findings The staff member might still be alive if he’d followed the employer’s safety rule and used the amp probe to test the electrical circuit before working on it. If he’d known the system was still energized, he probably wouldn’t have touched the wire and suffered his fatal injuries. No second chance for man who disregarded safety rule Employee failed to test electrical circuit before working on it You make the call: Should boss have known staffers weren’t wearing gear? “ L ook, Tammy,” said George, the supervisor, “there’s no doubt those two crew members should’ve been wearing fall protection gear while they were working at an elevated location. However, we didn’t even know they were disregarding our work rules and your regulation on fall protection.” “You had a supervisor on-site at the time of the violation,” said Tammy, “so you can’t claim ignorance of the regulation. I’m citing you for running afoul of our fall protection rule.” “You’re awfully quick to hit us with a citation,” said George, “considering that you haven’t even heard our side of the story.” “I’m listening,” replied Tammy. Experienced workers “The two men handling the job were experienced,” said George. “They knew better than not to wear their safety gear. We trained them to use the fall protection equipment and provided the gear to them, but they chose not to safeguard themselves. You can’t cite us when workers misbehave. It’s not our job to babysit people.” “You have an obligation as the employer to make sure your staffers follow all applicable safety rules,” said Tammy. “You can’t pass the buck to your staffers. Like I said, you had a supervisor on the worksite and it was his responsibility to make sure his crew members followed the regulation.” Another area “The supervisor was working in another area of the jobsite at the time of the alleged violation,” said George. “There was no way for him to know what the two men were up to. We’ll challenge your citation.” Did the company win? 2 Safety News Study identifies a major challenge: inconsistent use of safety equipment. 2 Quick Ideas One-quarter of hearing loss cases can be linked to workplace exposures. 3 Legal Developments Employee wasn’t wearing protective gear when he entered confined space. 3 Horror Stories Wife, daughter watch in horror as tiger bites man, tosses him to the ground. 4 Safety Meeting Make sure staff members understand that forklifts don’t operate like cars do. In this issue ■ Make your call, then go to page 3 for the court’s ruling. February 9, 2026 SafetyAlert FOR SUPERVISORS The No. 1 source of actionable information to help supervisors keep their people safe Including: Supervisor’s Safety Toolbox