Primary Employer Liable for OSHA Violation for
Failure to Have an Injury Prevention Program.
Peter Dessau & Katherine Pak

A recent California Court of Appeal decision, Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. California OSHA Bd. (2006) 138 Cal. App. 4th 684, held that an asphalt paving company was liable for a safety violation even though its employee was leased to another company. Sully-Miller, an asphalt paving company, leased one of its employees, Jeff Moreno, to Manhole Adjusting, Inc., as an asphalt roller operator. While working at Manhole’s worksite, Moreno was fatally injured when he was thrown from the roller because it lacked a workman’s seat belt. OSHA cited Sully-Miller for a serious violation of the employer safety provisions of its regulations because Sully-Miller did not have an injury prevention program that instructed Moreno to refuse work at a secondary site until he was provided with a working seat belt and for its failure to provide periodic monitoring of the work site. The Court of Appeal concluded that Sully-Miller was Moreno’s primary employer and that it was not relieved of responsibilities to provide general safety training to its employees just because the employee is leased to a secondary employer.

This case should act as a reminder to all employers that they need an up-to-date injury prevention program and include within it the obligation of employees to refuse work where proper safety equipment is absent.

(c) Copyright 2006 Miller, Morton, Caillat & Nevis. All rights reserved.
The information provided here is intended to educate the reader regarding issues of contemporary business interest. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or recommendations for application to any specific legal dispute. You should always confer with your legal counsel about the application of the principals and issues discussed to your own circumstances.

 

All content © Miller Morton Caillat & Nevis 2006. The information and materials available through this site are provided for informational purposes and do not constitute legal advice.