If you think 'the problem' has anything at all to do with safety procedures or equipment, you're confused.
I ordinarily wouldn't mind someone being confused, except that this is an example of where such confused thinking always leads to the exact opposite of the desired result. That is, it will lead to more injuries, not less.
Let's use, for an analogy, a footrace. A woman runs a marathon, finishes in record time, well ahead of any others. Yet, she is not awarded any of the prizes. Slower runners are given the awards, simply because race officials had separated the 'pro' runners from the 'amateurs,' givint the 'pros' a different starting time. Race officials simple assumed the race would be won by the 'pros,' and didn't even look at the 'amateur' times - even though this amateur finished an hour ahead of the pros. Same course, same rules, for all ...... though the fastest runner was a bit upset to find that, in this example, the race did not go to the fastest runner. In effect, the 'rules' were changed at awards time.
How is that relevant here?
It's relevant here simply because we've let the system ignore the ground rules, and start making things up as they go along.
Precept #1: Who's the boss? In this example, the guy worked for a contractor. You might want to say 'sure, but he's on company property, so the company can set the rules.' Sure ... let's do that, and let every broom-pusher at the company take it upon themselves to assert company rules on outside contractors. Where's the chain of responsibility? I hate to say it, but .... if you're going to treat the guy like an employee, don't cry when the guy asserts employee rights. Today it's "liability," tomorrow it's everything else, from vacation time to health care and retirement.
Precept #2: It's a clever way to dodge liability if we hire a contractor. Sure, let's avoid all that payroll / benefit / unemployment insurance / workmans' comp / immigration law / tax witholding / training stuff by hiring our guys through contractors. Their guys don't get to expect a regular work schedule, paid holidays, etc. I can fob off on the contractor the cost of tools and materials. Let's back up a moment here: you're trying to finesse the system, and now complain when the system won't go along?
Precept #3: Anyone can sue for anything, any time. Sure they can. The courts, though, are supposedly kept in check by precedent, tradition, and law. The argument made here by the injured man is contrary to the assumptions that form the basis of workmans' comp laws. Unless, of course, the 'contractor' relationship is fictitious, designed to get around the rules. If that's the case, the employer can find sympathy in his dictionary, but not from me. How else can a 'workmans' comp' issue enter the courts, as the very purpose of workmans' comp is to limit an employers' liability.
Precept #4: Government is the solution to everything. 70E? OSHA? "National" codes? What happened to 'separation of powers,' where issues like those in this case were seen as matters for state and local government? Looks to me as if the very creation of a national authority -OSHA- undermined the existing system of accountability. Likewise, the Courts themselves have created this anarchy by inserting themselves into matters as mundane as school bus routes.
Precept #5: I, as a customer, can dictate just who else the contractor does work for. Indeed, if I find you're doing work for my competitor, or can't jigger your schedule to suit my every whim, I just won't hire you any more. Sure I can. I might even get angry and point out to him that 'you work for me.' No wonder he expects me to deliver employee benefits.