• Home
  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact

Electrocution Accident Law

Portland Oregon Electrical Accident Attorney 503-221-2000

Contractor cited by OSHA for Electrocution Hazard

By ElecLaw

OSHA has cited a contractor for electrocution and fall hazards at a Westchester County, New York worksite. The information below, about significant construction job hazards, is from an OSHA news release dated November 9, 2009.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has proposed over $50,000 in fines against Metro Steel Fabricators Inc., a Brooklyn steel erection contractor, for alleged willful and serious violations of safety standards at a Tuckahoe, N.Y., jobsite.

OSHA’s inspection found that workers at the 30 Elm St. worksite were exposed to electrocution hazards while working within 10 feet of energized high-voltage power and service lines, while workers who were connecting steel beams without fall protection were exposed to falls of three stories.

“Falls and electrocutions are among the leading causes of death in construction work,” said Diana Cortez, OSHA’s area director in Tarrytown, N.Y. “Electricity can kill or injure instantly, while a momentary slip, trip or loss of balance can lead to a fatal or disabling plunge. There is no good reason for an employer’s failure to provide these basic, commonsense and legally required safeguards at each and every jobsite.”

The inspection also found that Metro Steel Fabricators was erecting steel without first receiving written verification that concrete footings were of sufficient strength to support the loads; a roadway workzone was improperly set up and lacked warning signs to tell motorists of a flagger and a crane in the roadway; and additional fall hazards stemmed from lack of perimeter safety cables and use of an incomplete stairway for access.

OSHA has issued Metro Steel Fabricators one willful citation, with a proposed fine of $35,000, for the electrocution hazard and seven serious citations, with $15,600 in fines, for the remaining items. OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard of employee safety and health. Serious citations are issued when death or serious physical harm is likely to result from hazards about which the employer knew or should have known.

“One means of preventing hazardous conditions is to establish an effective safety and health management system through which employers and employees work together to proactively evaluate, identify and eliminate hazards,” said Robert Kulick, OSHA’s regional administrator in New York.

Metro Steel Fabricators has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and proposed penalties to comply, meet with OSHA or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. The inspection was conducted by OSHA’s Tarrytown Area Office; telephone 914-524-7510.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, OSHA’s role is to promote safe and healthful working conditions for America’s men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, outreach and education. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov. For information about how on the job injuries may result in a claim in addition to the workers compensation claim, you may want to visit this article about the Employer Liability Law.

Filed Under: Blog, Construction Injury, On the Job Injury, Power Lines

2008 Cases Colorado: Liability Beyond Workers Comp

By ElecLaw

Subcontractor Employees Injured by Arcing

A recent personal injury case involved electrical arcing that hurt subcontractor employees. The US District Court for the District of Colorado issued an opinion in LEDBETTER et al. v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. et al., Civil Action No. 06-cv-01958-WYD-MJW. The opinion commented on when an injured worker’s claim will be defeated by the “statutory employer” doctrine. The Court considered both Colorado law and Oklahoma law. The analysis discussed when employees of a subcontractor can sue the contractor or other parties at fault.

The subcontractor employees were helping to perform infrared scanning in a Wal-Mart store. The scanning is intended to reveal overheating.

To perform the IR Imaging, the electrical equipment must be energized and exposed to the camera. Any face-plates covering the electrical conductors must be removed.

Defendant Eaton was performing an IR scan at a Wal-Mart store. An Eaton engineer was acting as the camera operator. The Plaintiffs, employees of a subcontractor, were the assistants pulling panel covers. The Plaintiffs were covered for workers’ compensation purposes by their direct employer, the subcontractor to Eaton.

Plaintiffs were replacing the covers on a piece of switchgear when an electrical arc occurred between the energized switchgear and the panel cover they were replacing. Plaintiffs were injured in the arc flash.

Eaton moved for summary judgment, and argued that the Worker’s Compensation Act bars a subcontractor’s employee from suing a general contractor for a work injury.

The parties disagreed about whether Colorado or Oklahoma law should be applied. However, the Judge found issues of fact that preclude summary judgment under either Colorado or Oklahoma law. He went on to comment on the workers comp defense of “statutory employer”.

Colorado Law

The Colorado Supreme Court has held that the primary purpose of the workers’ compensation act is to provide a remedy for job-related injuries, without regard to fault. The statutory scheme grants compensation from the employer without regard to negligence. In return, the responsible employer is granted immunity from common-law negligence liability.

For a third party, that is a general contractor, to be given this immunity even though the injured worker was on another company’s payroll, the general contractor must be a ‘”statutory employer” under the workers’ compensation act.

The test for whether an alleged employer is a “statutory employer” is whether the work contracted out is part of the employer’s ‘regular business’ as defined by its total business operation. In applying this test, courts consider the elements of routineness, regularity, and the importance of the contracted service to the regular business of the employer.
In applying the regular business test, Colorado courts have occasionally explored the degree of control the alleged statutory employer retains over the employee. Employer control may be probative of the importance of the contracted services to the alleged employer. However, the statutory employment relationship is not predicated on a finding of employer control; rather, a showing that the alleged statutory employer maintains control over the employee represents only one method of demonstrating the factor of importance.

Oklahoma Law

Under Oklahoma law, the principal for whom a contractor is performing work is immune from tort liability for injuries suffered by the contractor’s employees in the course of that work, if the work performed by the contractor was “necessary and integral” to the principal’s operations. Accordingly, the principal is the statutory employer of the injured employees and is liable to the injured employees only under the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Act. Tasks performed by a contractor are a “necessary and integral
‘ part of a principal’s operation when they (a) are directly associated with the day-to-day activity carried on by the [principal’s] line of trade, industry or business or (b) would customarily be done in that line of business.

The Court first inquires whether the contract work is specialized or non-specialized. This takes into consideration whether the level of skill, training, and experience required to perform the work at issue is not ordinarily possessed by workers outside the contract field.

If the contract work is specialized per se, it is not part of the principal’s trade, business, or occupation.

If the contract work is not specialized per se, the court then compares the contract work with the principal’s trade, business, or occupation to determine whether the contract work could be considered a part thereof. Finally, the court must inquire whether the principal was actually engaged at the time of the injury in the trade, business, or occupation of the hired contractor.

In the case at issue, there was no evidence that the contracted work was specialized per se. So the Court moved on to the second stage of the analysis. Several factors are: (a) Is the contract work routine and customary? That is, is it regular and predictable? Nonrecurring or extraordinary construction and repairs are usually held outside the scope of the statutory doctrine. (b) Does the principal have the equipment and/or manpower capable of performing the contract work? This sub-species of the specialty inquiry focuses on determining whether the contract work, as it relates to the hirer, is ordinarily handled through employees. (c) What is the industry practice relative to the contract work? The factors were developed by the case law to answer the overriding question of whether the contract work is, in that business, normally carried on through employees rather than independent contractors.

Finally, the third stage of the analysis is whether the principal hirer was engaged, at the time of the injury, in the trade, business or occupation of the hired contractor.

Statutory Employer Defense Does Not Necessarily Apply

The Judge held

” … I find that the Plaintiffs demonstrated through their response to Eaton’s motion for summary judgment that there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Eaton was a statutory employer under either Colorado or Oklahoma law.

First, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Eaton always uses subcontractors as part of its regular business operation for necessary and integral tasks or whether this type of work was ordinarily handled by Eaton employees. This is unclear from the evidence presented, and this issue is central to the analysis of whether Eaton was a statutory employer under either Colorado or Oklahoma law.

Second, there is conflicting evidence as to what degree of control Eaton exercised over the contracted workers. At a minimum, I find that these factual disputes are open to different interpretations which impact Eaton’s argument in its motion. Thus, summary judgment is not appropriate. … there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Eaton is a statutory employer, and thus summary judgment is not proper.”

Since summary judgment was denied, the case will continue so that the jury can decide the case.

This website has a related post on liability beyond workers compensation.

Filed Under: On the Job Injury Tagged With: Employer Liability Law, Subcontractor, Workers Comp

Pages

  • 5 Mistakes to Avoid in an Electrocution Accident Case
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
  • Electrical Accident Resources 503-221-2000
  • Electrical Burn
  • Free Booklet “It Can Happen to Anyone: How to Avoid Costly Mistakes In Your Accident Claim”
  • If injured person was also at fault
  • Privacy Policy and Disclaimer
  • Questions about an Electrocution Accident?
  • Safety Standards to Prevent Electrocution Accidents
  • Taxation of a Personal Injury Award
  • Time Limits
  • Tree growth and power lines

Recent Posts

  • Risk of Electrocution in Non-Electrician Jobs
  • On the job electrical injury results in $100,000 fine
  • Aluminum ladder results in construction injuries in Branford, Connecticut
  • Virginia county employee electrocuted on the job
  • Contractor cited by OSHA for Electrocution Hazard
  • Tree experts and power line cases
  • Tree Grew Around Power Lines, Child Electrocuted
  • Trial in Scotland about Death of Electrician
  • Delayed Effect of Electrical Shock
  • NY Times: Our Soldiers in Iraq in Danger of Electrocution

Categories

  • Blog
  • Construction Injury
  • On the Job Injury
  • Power Lines
  • Premises Liability
  • Subcontractor
  • Workers Comp