Safety Consultants    1-888-755-8010    info@FDRsafety.com

T: 1-888-755-8010
E: info@FDRsafety.com

 

Workplace Safety Blog

 

Written by:
Fred Rine, CEO of FDRsafety and former long-time Managing Director of Safety and Health at FedEx
Jim Stanley, President of FDRsafety and former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA
Mike Taubitz, Senior Advisor to FDRsafety and former Global Safety Director for General Motors
Rose McMurray, Chief Transportation Advisor to FDRsafety and former Chief Safety Officer of the Federal Motor Carrier Administration


Court decision changes rules on issuing violations

February 19th, 2013 posted by Jim Stanley

Jim Stanley

A federal appeals court has loosened one of the traditional standards of proof required for OSHA to issue a violation, potentially increasing vulnerability for employers.

The case involved a citation against an employer for failure to properly barricade the swing radius of a crane. What made the case unusual was that no employee was actually exposed to danger. Rather the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it was sufficient that an employee could have been exposed had he or she been in the zone of danger.

According to a report on the case by the OSHA Law Update from the EpsteinBeckerGreen law firm, the decision went against “the long-standing test for OSHA to establish a prima facie violation of an OSHA standard.”

The test includes “OSHA proving by a preponderance of the evidence that:

  1. The cited standard applies to the cited condition;
  2. The requirements of the cited standards were not met by the employer;
  3. The employer knew or should have known with the exercise of reasonable diligence about the hazardous condition; and
  4. Employees were exposed to the hazardous condition.”

It is that last element of the test that the decision changes.

“This decision appears to be a departure from settled law,” according to the OSHA Law Update. “Although it ought to be limited to employers within the Sixth Circuit’s reach (i.e., Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee), if the reasoning is adopted by other Circuits, employers could be opened up to liability for a parade of imagined horribles, as opposed to real world exposures.”

Subscribe to Jim Stanley’s blog postings about OSHA and receive them in your inbox or e-reader.

Leave a Reply