Court Opinion

ID: 9588153
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:30:52.24334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:23.455564
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Justice
(concurring):
I concur in affirming the judgment and in the decision generally. But I except from my concurrence the statement made at the conclusion of the discussion as to the architect that:
It is the duty of the Industrial Commission and not of the architect to see that *166contractors furnish, their employees with safe places to work.
I agree that under the circumstances of this case it zvas not the duty of the architect to see that the employees had a safe place to work.
That statement is sufficient in that it disposes of the pertinent issue: the liability of the architect. However, it is my opinion that the further gratuitous statement that:
It is the duty of the Industrial Commission ... to see that contractors furnish their employees with safe places to work.
might be misconstrued if applied in other circumstances. It is to be conceded that there is some justification for the statement made because of the provisions of the statute referred to, Section 35-1-16, U.C. A.1953, which gives the Industrial Commission powers:
To supervise every employment and place of employment and to administer and enforce all laws for the protection of the life, health, safety and welfare of employees, [and to]
fix such reasonable standards, and prescribe, modify and enforce such reasonable orders, for the adoption of safety devices, safeguards and other means or methods of protection, to be as nearly uniform as possible, as may be necessary to carry out all laws and lawful orders relative to the protection of the life, health, safety and welfare of employees in employment and places of employment.
Nevertheless, that statute giving the Industrial Commission general powers of supervision and to make rules and regulations as to workers’ safety should be read and understood in relation to the total law concerning duties to workmen and liabilities which may arise for their injuries; and it should not be misunderstood, either as placing the sole or the primary responsibility on the Industrial Commission to have its representative present on every job at all times to safeguard the safety of employees, nor to relieve others who should bear that responsibility.