The terrain was wooded, the poles were mixed between I-poles and T-poles, and the crew had to use a weighted ball and mule tape to get the line through trees. This was all part of their normal process. Yet even familiar tasks become dangerous when performed under energized lines. A 7.8-kilovolt primary line ran above the telecommunications space and the lineman ultimately contacted it, sustaining electrical shocks and burns. 

The cited safety standard that was at issue was §1910.268(b)(7), which requires that an employee maintain a 24-inch minimum approach distance (MAD) “unless” one of the provision’s enumerated exceptions has been implemented: the employee is wearing insulated gloves or otherwise guarded; the lines are insulated or grounded; or the lines are deenergized. The main question for the commission was whether Armstrong could have known about the violative condition with reasonable diligence. To prove a violation of the cited safety standard, the Secretary had to show the standard applied, the minimum approach distance was breached, employees were exposed and the employer knew or could have known about the hazard.

On the first two elements, there was no real dispute. Telecommunications field work of this nature falls under §1910.268, and not the construction electrical standard (for which OSHA had initially cited Armstrong). Moreover, because the minimum approach distance for voltages between 2kV and 15kV is 24 inches, actual contact is definitive proof of noncompliance. The employee was exposed to a deadly hazard the moment he touched the conductor.

The dispute centered on employer knowledge. The terrain created a changing clearance between the energized line and the steel strand. Measurements taken later showed 10 feet 5 inches of separation at one pole, 5 feet at the next, and 4 feet 9 inches at mid-span. Although the Administrative Law Judge reasoned that this significant change in clearance should have been detected and communicated, the commission disagreed, noting that the stipulated distances still exceeded the 24-inch requirement and that the foreman’s pre-work inspection reasonably indicated adequate clearance. 

The foreman drove the run, reviewed blueprints with the crew, and discussed the T-pole section and the trees. He emphasized caution in the area where the terrain changed. The crew was experienced, and the injured lineman had over two decades of field work, including extensive training on energized-line hazards and minimum approach distances. The commission emphasized that specific instructions must match the training and experience of the employee, and nothing in the record suggested the lineman lacked the ability to judge his clearance or had any history of unsafe conduct. The commission found that the foreman had reasonably relied on both the crew’s experience and the inspection performed that morning. Because there was no evidence the company knew or should have known the lineman would breach the approach distance, the citation was vacated. 

For the construction industry, the lessons go beyond the legal outcome.  

First, approach-distance discipline must be absolute. Whether the governing standard is a construction electrical rule or, as in this case, the telecommunications standard, the hazard is the same. A minimum approach distance is a line that cannot be crossed, and every crew member must treat it as non-negotiable. Even when clearances exceed the minimum, the slightest misjudgment, footing issue, or unexpected boom movement can erase the margin instantly.

Second, terrain changes matter. Variations in elevation between poles can alter the vertical relationship between energized lines and the work area. Hills, dips and tree canopies can distort sightlines. The Armstrong case involved a shift of more than five feet between poles, which the judge found “easily observable,” though the commission viewed it differently. Regardless, construction employers can benefit from incorporating terrain-specific observations into pre-task planning. A simple reminder to workers that clearances may vary, even along the same run can prevent a moment of complacency.

Third, pre-work inspections must be deliberate. Here, the foreman rode the run, visually evaluated the clearances, reviewed blueprints and issued instructions. The commission found this adequate, but the decision still underscores how important documentation, communication and follow-through are when a crew is working under energized lines. Even if a hazard seems obvious, articulating it reinforces awareness.

Finally, a strong safety program is not a guarantee against field-level decisions. Armstrong’s safety manual contained clear rules matching the regulation. Employees received classroom and hands-on training, recurring bucket-truck certification, and monthly safety meetings. Even with that foundation, injuries can occur, especially when work involves close proximity to overhead power lines. This makes on-site real-time supervision, hazard recognition and ongoing communication critical.  Moreover, consistent reinforcement of basic electrical safety principles remains essential, regardless of tenure and experience. 

Workers near energized lines should take this decision as an opportunity to reinforce electrical-hazard awareness, examine how field conditions influence approach distances and ensure every employee from the most junior apprentice to the most seasoned lineman treats energized infrastructure with the caution it deserves.

About the author: Costas Cyprus, Esq. practices construction law and commercial litigation with Welby, Brady & Greenblatt, LLP, in White Plains, NY. He can be reached at 914-428-2100 and at ccyprus@wbgllp.com. The articles in this series do not constitute legal advice and are intended for general guidance only.

Published: December 11, 2025.