Loading ...
Lessons from a California Case
Gerald’s tale brought to mind the not so uncommon situation in which emergency workers get cited by OSHA (or the OHS equivalent in Canada) for disobeying safety rules during rescue operations. Consider the following case from California.
What Happened
While helping with the construction of a new building, a California worker fell to the basement pit and was seriously injured. Paramedics arrived and went down to the pit to provide the victim emergency treatment. But they had to get him out of the pit to provide further assistance. So the victim’s co-worker climbed 26 feet up the building’s steel structure and directed the crane operator via telephone to lift a man-basket with the injured worker and paramedics out of the pit. The co-worker wasn’t wearing a safety belt or lifeline. When OSHA arrived, it cited the employer for fall protection violations.
The Defense
The employer admitted that one of its workers had been standing on a high I-beam without appropriate protection. But it contested the citation, reasoning that the co-worker wasn’t technically “working” at the time. He was just acting as a Good Samaritan trying to help the victim.
The Ruling
The appeals courts disagreed. The rescue operation was “necessitated by an on-the-job accident,” the court said. Thus, during the rescue operation the co-worker was acting not as a Good Samaritan but as a worker subject to OSHA rules. The employer was therefore guilty of a violation of fall protection standards.
Herrick Corp. v. California Occupational Health and Safety Appeals Board, 2006 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 9982, Nov. 1, 2006.
Email This Post
Print This Post
Top
Story Comments (5)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
If the worker on the beam signaling the crane had fallen also, he would have claimed workers' comp benefits (and lost wages to go with it) for being a worker not a good sumaritan.
I would hope the decision is/was appealed by the Employer. Climbing to a crane operator's location to effect a rescue would NOT be in the Employee's job description or 'scope of duties'. So even if the act is construed to have occurred while "working", assuming the Employer has documentation of training & enforcement of Fall Protection programs, this should be over turned. One man's opinion anyway! This also makes me think of 9-11 when many rescue workers did NOT don PPE. Here (again my opinion), those 'violations' that occurred during the 1st day should be seen as emergencies & spontaneous 'Good Samaritan' acts. However when days later crews were not wearing dust masks or other gear, then legitimate violations did occur.
It might seem the employer isn't that concerned about safety rules. After all, why did the employee fall into the basement pit to begin with? Was he/she not wearing fall protection or was there an unguarded opening?
And for the rescue workers, I hope they didn't enter a permit required space without proper testing and respiratory protection (if needed). How many would-be rescuers have died in confined spaces from ignoring safety procedures and putting themselves in danger to attempt a rescue?
Lets go back to the beginning!...A worker fell into a basement on a construction site!.. does that not set off any red flags right from the start?...obviously the company does not understand the concept of fall protection!...I say guilty as charged!
Guilty as charged, As RD put it. The Company obviously does not understand the concept of fall protection if it had, the worker would not have fallen into the pit nor would the worker be standing on the High I beam without a fall protection, It all comes from training which is required if you are putting a falling prevention policy into place.
The Company got the right judgement for having a Whitewash HSE system in place