Construction Web guide: infrastructure, buildings, engineering, architectureHowrey
Web directory of federal, state, local governments; courts; legislatures; Congress; trade groups; businesses; colleges; libraries; publications; international agencies affecting construction, engineering, architecture, infrastructure Web directory of resources on licensing, registration, building codes, new projects, bidding, financing, environment, specifications, e-commerce, laws, regulations, insurance, bonds, jobs, safety, best practices, engineering, architecture, training Web guide to dictionaries; encyclopedias; reference materials; business and international travel resources; people finders; telephone numbers; Web addresses; postal codes; currency, metric converters; time zones; calendars; travel; news
More than 500 online news and legal reports on construction law, including claims, payment remedies, damages, government contracting, insurance, building codes, licensing, technology, arbitration, engineering, architecture, infrastructure
Site Search Site Map Registration About Howrey ConstructionWebLinks Contact Us

Abandoned Contract
Bankruptcy Court Holds Officer Personally Liable for Corporation’s Debt and Refuses to Discharge It

Still Can Comment
Federal Contractors Must Report Top Executive Pay and Subcontract Awards Under New Interim Rule

Contract Ambiguous?
Contractor Prevails on $36 Million in Claims Against L.A., Allowed to Seek More Damages from Jury

Liquidated Damages
Contractor Barred from Asserting Defenses Because It Failed to Submit Formal Claim to Navy

Monitoring Required
New Federal Stormwater Management Rules for Construction Sites: How They Work and How to Cope

$240 Million Fines
U.S. Steps Up Enforcement of Corruption Law Against International Companies, Executives; Whistleblower Bounties Expanded

Risk Created By Others
Subcontractor Held Liable to Workers Injured by Jobsite Hazard that It Did Not Report

Preliminary Injunction
Lender Ordered to Fund Construction Loan for Commercial Project; Green Financing Cited

Delegation to Arbitrator
Narrowed Role for Courts in Deciding Arbitrability Questions Confirmed by U.S. Supreme Court

Previous Issues

Construction Industry News

Contractor Fined $93,000 for Willful Trenching Safety Violations


August 21, 2000


Back to Industry Newsletters
 


Howrey LLP

A South Dakota excavation contractor was fined $93,000 by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration for trenching violations on a water main project that were discovered during a surprise site inspection. The fines were upheld recently by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Dakota Underground, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, 200 F.3d 564 (8th Cir. 2000). The court remanded to the Administrative Law Judge for further consideration a separate penalty for a trenching water violation that could increase the total fine by $40,000.

Dakota Underground, Inc. is an excavation contractor. In August 1997, a four-man Dakota crew was replacing a water main in Fargo, North Dakota. An OSHA inspector conducted an unscheduled inspection of the worksite and cited Dakota for violations of OSHA regulations. Each of the violations was deemed "willful," resulting in greater penalties. The violations included: (1) Allowing a worker to work in the trench without a ladder for egress; (2) allowing water to accumulate in the trench and failing to protect the worker from the dangers associated with the water; and (3) failure to adequately protect workers from cave-in by shoring up or sloping the walls of the trench.

Specifically, the OSHA inspector noted that when he arrived at the site, he observed a worker in a trench without a ladder, in clear view of the foreman. OSHA argued, and the court agreed, that such a disregard by the foreman for OSHA regulations demonstrated that Dakota condoned the actions of its worker. The foreman's inaction was attributable to Dakota. The court also noted that Dakota had previously been cited for multiple trenching violations, several of which were willful.

Dakota, however, argued that ladders were available to its employees at the worksite and that the ladders were periodically moved so as to be close to workers in the trenches. Accordingly, the violation should not be deemed willful. The court stated that even if Dakota complied with the ladder regulation at other times, that would not negate the ALJ's finding of willfulness with respect to this violation. "If an employer knowingly permits a serious hazard to exist, it has acted willfully even if the workplace is otherwise safe." Valdak Corp. v. OSHRC, 73 F.3d 1466 (8th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, the court affirmed the ALJ's assessment of a $23,000 penalty for the ladder violation.

Dakota also was cited for trenching in violation of 29 CFR §1926.652 (a). That regulation requires that each employee in an excavation be protected from cave-ins by an adequate protective system. For the water main job, Dakota chose to utilize trench boxes to protect its workers. While trench boxes are an adequate protective measure under the regulation, they protect only those workers working within their boundaries.

During his inspection, the OSHA inspector noted that at least two employees in three different locations were working outside the confines of the trench box. The OSHA inspector deemed these violations willful, and the ALJ assessed the maximum penalty for the trenching violations, $70,000. The penalty assessed is determined by examining four factors: (1) the size of the company; (2) the gravity of the violation; (3) the good faith of the employer; and (4) the history of previous violations. 29 USC §666 (j).

The court noted that the size of the penalty here was based primarily on the second factor, the gravity of the violation. The court added, however, that none of the other factors warranted a reduction in the amount of the penalty. Dakota had a history of OSHA violations, and because the violations were willful, there was an indication of a lack of good faith on the part of the employer. Consequently, despite that fact that Dakota was a small company, the court affirmed the penalty.

Lastly, Dakota argued that the violations should have been grouped, thus capping the penalty at $70,000. The court disagreed, stating that the different violations would require different acts of abatement. Accordingly, the ALJ's decision not to group the violations was upheld and penalties of $93,000 were affirmed. The determination on the $40,000 water penalty was remanded to the ALJ for further proceedings.


If you would like to receive legal reports and updates more quickly, by e-mail, click here and fill out the mailing list form. If you would like to subscribe to our RSS feeds or learn more about RSS, click here.


For more information about the issues covered in this report, please contact Paul Berning in our San Francisco office at 415-848-4996 or at paulberning@howrey.com or contact your Howrey attorney. For more information about Howrey's Construction Practice Group, click here.


Send This Report to a Colleague

Tools to Share, Organize, Comment on Information


©2000 Howrey LLP

More than 500 online news and legal reports on construction law, including claims, payment remedies, damages, government contracting, insurance, building codes, licensing, technology, arbitration, engineering, architecture, infrastructure

© Howrey LLP
All rights reserved.
Legal notices, and terms and conditions.

Site Search Site Map Registration About Howrey ConstructionWebLinks Contact Us