banner ad

Experts.com-No broker Movie Ad
 
Create a free acount with PRWeb!
 
Deposition Designation Station
 
Share |


When personal injury events occur legal negligence actions may arise.

Common law negligence is established by plaintiff showing defendant owed plaintiff a legal duty, to conform to a standard of care, defendant breached that duty, plaintiff suffered injury and there is a causal relationship between the breach and injury. FN 1 But what sources of standard of care proofs are available? How does a litigant go about proving standard of care?

While the Restatement of Torts and Colorado common law have long been a historical source of offering examples of standard of care a relatively new additional potential source of this crucial element has arisen in Colorado (and some other states), namely the safety standards of the Occupational Safety Health Act of 1970 ("OSH Act"). The OSH Act is a body of federal safety rules and procedures applied to certain businesses and industries relative to employee safety. As originally designed the OSH Act was developed and implemented as federally (or states using State OSHA) enforceable safety guidelines for employee safety in the U.S. work place.

The OSH Act is administered by the federal agency Occupational Health and Safety Administration ("OSHA") (or OSHA Approved State Plans) and divided into four parts: General Industry, Construction Industry, Maritime and Agriculture. (The OSH Act specifically excludes mining which governed by its "little brother", Mine Health Safety Administration, "MSHA", pursuant to the Federal Mine safety & Health Act of 1977.) OSHA through one of these four parts enforces compliance in the workplace venue upon employers.

Are the OSH Act safety standards available for use in private negligence actions? In Colorado the answer is a qualified "yes".

A brief history of the use of the OSH Act in negligence cases in Colorado may assist in understanding the path leading to "yes".

Attempts in the past to use the OSH Act as a jury instruction in negligence per se have met judicial resistance. In a leading case on this point a plaintiff an independent contractor on a job site, fell through a roof hole loosely covered by plywood and sustained injuries. FN2 Plaintiff argued the roof condition violated federal safety rules under the OSH Act, thereby making defendant contractor responsible for his injuries. FN3 The Canape court ruled that use of the OSH Act (in jury instructions) under a theory of negligence per se was contrary to the OSH Act under 29 CFR 653 (b) (4).

The Canape court reasoned that negligence per se may be established where 1) defendant's action violates a statute and plaintiff's injury was proximately caused by that violation, and 2) plaintiff can show he/she is a member of the protected class under the statute. FN 4 The Canape court ruled the OSH Act focuses strictly on employer/employee relationships and that plaintiff's services to defendant were rendered as an independent contractor. In support of this conclusion, the Court noted applicability of the OSH Act applicability to specific working relationships is limited to employer/employee relationships. FN 5

The Canape court further ruled the OSH Act prohibits its use where there may be an enlargement of common law rights. FN 6 The court's raised the concern that negligence per se jury instruction using the OSH Act would exceed its statutory limitation. Colorado courts have consistently held Congress specifically legislated the OSH Act to NOT be available to injured employees claiming a violation that would bypass applicable state worker's compensation benefits via a court action. FN7 Furthermore, Colorado courts hold that accepting a negligence per se jury instruction via OSH Act would alter a contractor's duty at common law in the exercise of reasonable care thereby enlarging his burden under OSHA. Canape's defendant's tort liability would have been enlarged by allowing Canape to proceed with a negligence per se theory." FN8

Did Canape completely remove the OSH Act from negligence actions in Colorado?

No. In Scott an independent contractor fell from atop a tanker owned by defendant Matlack sustaining injuries. Plaintiffs sought to introduce OSH Act safety regulations to prove a standard of care breach by defendant. Defendant argued the OSH Act could not be put forth as a standard of care pursuant to OSH Act section 653 (b) (4). (This section of OSH Act provides it may not be used to change an employees or employers common law liability.) In Scott the trial court denied plaintiffs proposed jury instruction of negligence per se via the OSH Act in lieu of rather allowing an instruction of general common-law negligence. The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine if the Canape ruling excludes all OSH Act related evidence (pertaining to the appropriate standard of care) in negligence actions.

The Scott court ruled on several points regarding the use of the OSH Act in negligence cases. First, the Canape ruling does not "...preclude the admission of the Occupational Safety and Health Act evidence in a negligence suit, therefore; (2) "...it is proper for the trial court to admit Occupational Safety and Health Act regulations as evidence of the standard of care in an industry..." FN 9 The Scott court holding further states 1) the OSH Act could not create a private cause of action and hence plaintiffs are prohibited from using OSH Act to establish negligence per se; and 2) that use of the OSH Act in common law negligence claims is not prohibited under Canape. In short the trier of fact is allowed to hear evidence of the OSH Act as "...some, nonconclusive, evidence of the standard of care in the relevant industry." FN 10

So what does it all mean?

. . .Continue to read rest of article (PDF).

Share |

Greg Gerganoff, ASP, CSP, Esq., is an OSHA / MSHA Safety field and compliance expert with experience in the heavy construction, oil and gas, mining, pipeline, and trenching and excavation industries.

©Copyright - All Rights Reserved

DO NOT REPRODUCE WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION BY AUTHOR.