legal developments Safety insight: Staffers who think it’s OK to remove their safety gear for “just a minute” should know that doing so could lead to a life- altering injury. What happened: A company hired a third-party contractor to handle a roofing job. The written agreement stipulated that the contractor would be solely responsible for safety at the work site. What people did: A contract employee was wearing a safety harness and lanyard while laboring on the roof. He needed to retrieve some materials from another section of the work site, but his lanyard was too short. So he unhooked his safety gear for just a minute. A short time later, he slipped and fell off the roof. He was severely injured. He eventually received workers’ comp benefits for his injuries. Legal challenge: The contract employee sued the host employer for negligent hiring, contending that the contract company that employed him had a history of safety violations related to fall protection, and that the host employer was aware of the contractor’s shoddy safety record. Result: The host employer won. The court ruled that the worker’s negligent hiring case couldn’t proceed to trial. The judge said the injured contract employee couldn’t sidestep the workers’ comp system by trying to shift responsibility for his injuries to the contract company that employed him. Rather, he was entitled to comp benefits but nothing more. In addition, the record showed that the host employer didn’t control the means and methods of the roofing work. The skinny: Courts are reluctant to allow hurt staff members to use a backdoor way to effectively blame their own employer for their injuries and circumvent the workers’ comp system. Cite: Suquilanda v. Skyway Roofing, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, No. SJC-13878, 8/17/26. horror stories Summary A skilled tradesman was fatally pinned between two dies when the routine task of replacing a die went horribly wrong. The incident Most of the employees at Thai Summit America Corp., Howell, MI, knew Joseph Hopper to be a skilled die setter. They also were aware that Hopper took great pride in the quality of his work. So everyone was surprised when things went horribly wrong while Hopper was helping to set up a die. Hopper had climbed atop a die that was being lowered by a crane operator into position to replace another die. The crane operator noticed that the locating pin was set in the wrong position, so he lifted the die back up. Hopper climbed off the die to look for the pin when the raised die got caught on another piece of machinery, which caused the die to swing back and forth. Suddenly, the raised die struck Hopper and crushed him against the other die. The response The crane operator jumped from the cab and raced over to help Hopper. Responders arrived a short time later, but Hopper’s injuries were too severe and he was soon declared dead. The aftermath Hopper, 34, left behind his wife, Monaclaire, and their five children. “Joe was a devoted father, husband, son, grandson and above all else, the kind of man who showed up, worked hard and loved deeply,” read his obituary. “Joe was a man of faith who knew that eternal life comes through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ,” continued Hopper’s obituary. “His Christian faith carried him through life and in his passing, it remains a source of comfort and strength for his family as they walk through this difficult time. Joe will be forever in our hearts.” August 31, 2026 Safety Alert for Supervisors 3 You make the call: The decision (See case on page 1) Yes. The company won. An appeals board overturned the citation. The board said the crew member exceeded the scope of her job duties when she reached into the machine to clear the jam. Just days beforehand, the injured staffer had been specifically warned not to reach into equipment to clear jams. She was also told it was the duty of the equipment operator to free blockages; she was only supposed to observe the machine in operation. Because the employer couldn’t have foreseen that the woman would expand the scope of her job duties, it wasn’t liable for the safety violation. What it means: Workers often expand their duties As many times as you might warn crew members not to expand their job duties, the unfortunate reality is that people will sometimes take on tasks for which they haven’t been trained, then get hurt. In this case, the woman had been told not to clear jams, but she tried to remove a blockage anyway. As a result, she now has three fewer fingers. Your takeaway: Regularly remind your crew members to avoid potentially hazardous tasks that they haven’t been trained to handle. Plus, if you see someone expanding his or her job duties and engaging in unsafe work, be sure to immediately discipline the individual. Based on CalOSHA v. Blue Diamond Growers. Bad idea: Worker removed his safety gear for ‘just a minute’ Routine job goes wrong; man replacing die fatally crushed