This is hypothetical:
If there is a licensed electrician working full time for a facility (in-house), and the facility's manager asks a non-electrical maintenance person to do some electrical, who is legally responsible for that work?
or,
If there is a problem with the work that the electrician performed, and it, say, started a fire, who is held responsible? The electrician or the owner of the facility?
:-?
I attended training on overhead safety and theatrical rigging that discussed these same kinds of questions as they relate to that work. I think the answers would be similar.
(paraphrased as it was 15 years ago)If you are working and you observe work being performed that is unsafe or could reasonably be predicted to result in an unsafe/hazardous condition in a field for which you are deemed a qualified person and you fail to report it to your superior or take other reasonable action or measures to prevent such conditions, then you can be found negligent and exposed to potential liability.
Some of the key things we picked up from Q&A... If you are not "working" then the situation is different. Part of the reason for this is a general assumption that you have been employed for your skills and qualifications and you are expected to exercise those skills at all times while you are working for your employer. Your employer may bear the liability to the injured party but may be able to go after you for restitution if you were negligent. There was a lot of discussion on the concept of "reasonable actions/measures/person". There is a difference between negligent and criminally negligent. This ties to your second question.
Unless specifically excluded in employee/employer written agreements, and in some states even if it is, an employer takes on the liability burden of a qualified employee doing work for which they are qualified to do or requested to perform by a superior. The big exception is in the case of criminal negligence. They explained that criminal negligence requires a conscious awareness of wrong doing and doing it anyway. Mistakes don't count. Equipment failures don't count. More discussions on "reasonable person" ensued.
The example given (again processed through a 15 year memory filter and laws in place at the time) was of a job that did not have all the required pieces, supervisor told the rigger to use substitute pieces that were not adequate to the task, and the rigger knew it. He started to question it and the supervisor told him to just do it. He did, the piece broke, and someone got hurt(luckily not dead). Turned out the supervisor was not qualified to make the call, the rigger was. The rigger was found criminally negligent, ended up with a short jail sentence and a bunch of liability. If the supervisor had threatened the rigger (explicitly or implicitly) the findings would have been different. A second example involved 2 employees and an aerial man lift that they were pushing around with the outriggers removed and safety interlock defeated.
The instructors also mentioned it is a good idea to consult with your HR and/or in-house legal group to clarify this. They provided a release of liability form to be used with smaller employers to confirm everybody was on the same page but I don't have a copy anymore.
I hope this information is useful.
