Construction site safety expert

Expert class library · Construction · Either side

A construction safety professional, often a certified safety professional or engineer with OSHA construction experience, who says whether a general contractor, owner or subcontractor met the safety standards for a job site: fall protection, barricades, crane and equipment safety, and who controlled the work. Courts generally let these experts explain OSHA construction regulations and industry practice, and an appellate court has reversed a trial court for striking such testimony, but opinions that turn on reading a contract or on OSHA's multi-employer policy as a source of legal duty are rejected as legal conclusions that cannot defeat summary judgment.

What this expert is retained to answer

• Which OSHA construction standards or industry practices does the expert rely on, and do they apply to the defendant's role on this site?
• Is the opinion about who controlled the work based on facts in the record, or on the expert's reading of a contract?
• Does the expert treat OSHA's multi-employer citation policy as creating a duty under state tort law?
• Has the expert connected the safety lapse to how the accident happened?
• Is the expert qualified in construction safety, or offering it as a sideline to another discipline?

Methods

• Review of OSHA construction standards (29 CFR Part 1926) and industry practice
• Site safety plan and contract safety provisions review
• Controlling, creating and exposing employer analysis
• Fall protection, barricade and traffic control assessment
• Accident site and incident record review

How the testimony is attacked

• Contract reading as expert opinion. An expert's interpretation of a contract is a legal conclusion. In Haggard v. Blattner Energy the Texas court held a safety expert's opinions, premised largely on his reading of an agreement not in the record, could not show the contractor controlled a crane operator's work.
• OSHA's multi-employer policy as a duty. Courts in several states hold OSHA regulations do not expand common-law duties. The Haggard court held a safety expert's opinion that the contractor was the controlling employer under OSHA's multi-employer policy did not raise a fact issue.
• Striking OSHA evidence after admitting it. OSHA regulations can be evidence of the standard of care for those on or near a construction site. In Bailey v. M.B.C. Construction the Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed a trial court that struck a safety expert's OSHA opinion after the jury heard it.
• Not a full reconstruction. Opponents attack a safety expert who did not reconstruct the accident. In Harris v. Boh Bros. Construction the Louisiana court upheld a contractor's reconstruction expert, whose construction zone safety expertise covered his opinion that a reconstruction was not possible on the evidence.
• Cumulative of other experts. Defendants argue a safety expert repeats a reconstructionist's causation testimony, an objection courts assess under the rule against needless cumulative evidence.

What the public record shows

Courts have filed at least 27 opinions since 2015 that address this class of testimony under Daubert or Rule 702, as of October 4, 2026. Three that show how courts handle this class of testimony:

Each case links to the free opinion text on CourtListener.

Under amended Rule 702

Since December 1, 2023, Rule 702 says expressly that the party offering an expert must show the court it is more likely than not that the testimony meets each requirement: that it rests on sufficient facts or data, uses reliable methods, and reflects a reliable application of those methods to the case. Questions about the basis of an opinion are no longer automatically matters of weight for the jury. For how the circuits have applied the amendment, see the Rule 702 tracker, which follows each court of appeals; for what that means for preparing or attacking this class of expert, see the guide on amended Rule 702.

Related classes

• Workplace safety and OSHA compliance expert
• Accident reconstructionist
• Highway design and traffic engineer

Guides

• Amended Rule 702 After Nearly Three Years: What Courts Exclude

Simulating this class on a matter

Supreme Mind simulates a class of expert, never a named individual, on your fact pattern and returns the likely opinion, the ranked cross-examination weaknesses, the Rule 702 attack surface and what it means for settlement. Read how it works, or book a demo.

Last reviewed October 4, 2026. How this page is built: rulings are found by searching court opinions on CourtListener, and each one is read in the opinion before it is summarised here; outcomes are labelled by what the court did with the expert's testimony. No individual expert is named. This page summarises public decisions for orientation and is not legal advice; read the opinion before relying on any ruling.