Catastrophic Accident Resulted in a Workplace Fatality — Does Not Automatically Mean There Was an OSHA Violation

26 October 2015 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Daniel A. Kaplan

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is charged with enforcing the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA Act), and its various regulations intended to keep employees safe in their workplaces. Failure to comply with the regulations addressing machine guarding is one of the most-often issued citations by OSHA, routinely appearing in its “Top Ten” list of most frequently found violations. However, just because an employer suffers a catastrophic accident that results in the death of one of its employees, it does not mean that the company failed to provide appropriate machine guarding. At least, that is the lesson from a recent federal appellate court decision.

Loren Cook, a manufacturer of air circulating equipment, uses a number of varying size metal lathes to form and mold metal discs used in its manufacturing process. A lathe operates by rotating an object at high rates of speed, to which an operator will apply a work tool to shape the metal or other substance into individual work pieces.

OSHA regulation 1910.212(a)(1), addresses guarding requirements for machines. That regulation requires employers to use one or more methods to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as rotating parts, flying chips, and sparks. Barrier guards are the most common device used by employers with workplace machinery, including metal lathes, to comply with this machine guarding standard. A barrier guard is a device designed to keep the operator or other employees away from rotating machinery, and protect them from flying chips and sparks. However, most barrier guards are not designed to address a catastrophic accident where, for example, a 12-pound piece of metal comes loose from a lathe and strikes an operator in the head. This is exactly what happened, unfortunately, to one of Loren Cook’s employees in May 2009, at its Springfield, MO manufacturing facility.

OSHA cited Loren Cook with seven (7) violations of the machine guarding standard and assessed $70,000 for each alleged violation for a total fine of $490,000. Loren Cook challenged the citation, as it had a barrier guard in place on the lathe on which the accident occurred. The matter eventually ended up before the federal appellate court following multiple appeals by OSHA of an Administrative Law Judge determination that Loren Cook had not violated the machine guarding standard.

The federal appeals court affirmed the decision finding that Loren Cook provided machine guarding consistent with the requirements under the regulations. According to the court, some catastrophic accidents are simply never anticipated nor can they necessarily be protected from. Here, the large piece of metal tore through the guard that was designed to protect the operator from flying chips and sparks. The court noted that the OSHA regulations are intended to address routine risks of operation; not catastrophic lathe failures that result in the ejection of entire work pieces.

OSHA has been one of the Department of Labor (DOL) agencies that has been particularly aggressive over the past five to six years with respect to workplace safety enforcement. Safety is important in every workplace. However, not every accident can be attributed to an “unsafe” workplace or a company failure. Sometimes, bad things happen to good people, and employers may be called upon to show that they have acted in a responsible manner.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

When Birds Finally Find a Nest
17 September 2019
Dashboard Insights
DHS Moves Closer to Launching its H-1B Cap Registration System
16 September 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Be Aware of Potential Legal Restrictions When Implementing a Workplace Weapons Policy
16 September 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
EEO-1 Component 2 Filing Deadline is Just Days Away – But Employers May Be Off the Hook Next Year
16 September 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.