Inspection Detail
Inspection: 310098587 - Roberto Cardona
Inspection Information - Office: Foster City District Office
Site Address:
Roberto Cardona
2097 El Capitan Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Mailing Address:
2087 El Capitan Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95050
Union Status: NonUnion
SIC:1761
NAICS: 238160/Roofing Contractors
Inspection Type: Accident
Scope: Partial
Advanced Notice: N
Ownership: Private
Safety/Health: Safety
Close Conference: 10/29/2010
Planning Guide: Safety-Construction
Emphasis: S:Construction (Cship)
Case Closed: 11/20/2010
| Type | Activity Nr | Safety | Health |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accident | 101135770 |
| Violations/Penalties | Serious | Willful | Repeat | Other | Unclass | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial Violations | 2 | 2 | ||||
| Current Violations | 2 | 2 | ||||
| Initial Penalty | $0 | $0 | $0 | $100 | $0 | $100 |
| Current Penalty | $0 | $0 | $0 | $100 | $0 | $100 |
| FTA Penalty | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| # | Citation ID | Citaton Type | Standard Cited | Issuance Date | Abatement Due Date | Current Penalty | Initial Penalty | FTA Penalty | Contest | Latest Event | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 01001 | Other | 1509 A | 11/05/2010 | 12/08/2010 | $50 | $50 | $0 | - | ||
| 2. | 01002 | Other | 1509 B | 11/05/2010 | 12/08/2010 | $50 | $50 | $0 | - |
Investigation Summary
At approximately 9:00 a.m. on September 17, 2010, six workers were replacing the roof of a single-story residence in Santa Clara, CA. In a later interview, the homeowner stated that the job of replacing the roof was started on September 17, 2010, and finished by September 19, 2010. During the course of this investigation, involved workers and parties were interviewed. Some of the workers at the job site had been hired by other workers there. It was determined that the homeowner had a verbal or oral contract with his neighbor for this job. The homeowner was under the impression that his neighbor, Coworker #1, was a construction worker and that he would bring some coworkers from a licensed company with him. The workers, however, were not working for any licensed entity. Coworker #1 asked another worker, Coworker #2, to replace the roof. Coworker #2 told Coworker #1 that he would install the new roof but not tear off the old roof. With that knowledge, Coworker #1 told Coworker #2 that he, Coworker #1, could find some people standing outside a Home Depot to tear off the old roof. Coworker #2 disagreed with that notion, because those workers might not have roofing experience. Accordingly, Coworker #1 told Coworker # 2 to find workers who did have experience. Coworker #2 asked a friend from church, Coworker #3, who had two years of roofing experience, if he could pull off the old roof. Coworker #3 accepted this offer and told Coworker # 2 that he would do this job with the help of three other friends, Employee #1, Coworker #4, and Coworker #5, who were experienced. According to the homeowner, the agreement with Coworker #1 was to start the job on September 18, 2010. Coworker #1, though, called the homeowner early in the morning on September 17, 2010, and said that the workers were on their way to start the job. At approximately 7:00 a.m. on September 17, 2010, Coworker #2 took Coworker #3 up onto the roof to show him the job, and then Coworker #2 left. At that point, Employee #1, Coworker #4, and Coworker #5 went up onto the roof and started tearing it off. At around 9:00 a.m., Employee #1 fell off the roof. Coworker #3 witnessed this accident. Coworker #3 stated that Employee #1 was pulling off the roof, when he accidently stepped on a plastic gutter that was hanging from the edge of the roof. The gutter broke, and Employee #1 lost his balance and fell off the roof. The edge of the roof was approximately nine feet above the cement-paved backyard where Employee #1 landed. Employee # 1 sustained a serious head injury due to lacerations. The homeowner called emergency medical technicians immediately. Then the homeowner called Coworker #1, who was coordinating with the workers and was apparently not at the scene. The Santa Clara fire department arrived at the scene, and Employee #1 was sent to the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, where he died on the following day. Meanwhile, the Santa Clara fire department interviewed the involved parties. It was determined that the homeowner had hired unlicensed workers and an unlicensed contractor. The workers were not covered by an Injury Illness Prevention Program (I2P2, or IIPP) safety program. Thus, Employee #1 was exempt from needing fall protection under the Roofing Standard, because the height of the roof was less than 20 feet. Coworker #1 gave an estimate to the homeowner, arranged the labor, arranged the purchase of roofing material, handled the money, coordinated with the employer and laborers, and hired a truck to pick up the roofing trash and litter. It was determined that Coworker #1 acted as a general contractor. Therefore, Coworker #1 was cited for not having an IIPP safety program under CCR 1509 (a) and for not having a Code of Safe Practices under CCR 1509(b). Coworker #2 and Coworker # 3 were acting as subcontractors. Therefore, they were cited for not observing the Code of Safe Practices under 1509(b). This accident was reported by a social worker from the Santa Clara Valley Med
Keywords: HEAD, ROOF, UNSECURED, CONSTRUCTION, LACERATION, WALKING SURFACE, ROOFER, UNSTABLE SURFACE, FALL, LOST BALANCE
| # | Inspection | Age | Sex | Degree of Injury | Nature of Injury | Occupation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 310098587 | Fatality | Cut/Laceration | Construction laborers |
Translate