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

Court Clarifies the Meaning of ‘Willful’ in Affirming $40,000 Safety Fine


July 10, 2000


Back to Industry Newsletters
 

By John W. Ralls
Howrey LLP

A California Court of Appeal has clarified the meaning of "willful" in safety violations. The case involved an electrician's apprentice who suffered severe injuries while working on an energized electrical cable. The apprentice had been asked to work on the cable by a foreman who mistakenly assumed the cable was not energized.

The California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health cited the contractor for a violation of CalOSHA regulations. Specifically, the Division found the contractor had violated 8 CCR §2320.2, which provides that work may be performed on "exposed energized parts of equipment or systems" only when responsible supervision has determined that the work must be performed while the equipment is energized and only after particular safety training and personnel protection measures are taken. The division concluded that the violation was "willful," apparently because a similar incident had occurred approximately three weeks earlier. After that incident, division personnel cited the contractor and instructed the contractor to take steps to ensure that its employees did not unintentionally perform work on energized circuits. The division assessed a $40,000 penalty for the second violation.

The contractor filed an appeal with the California Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board. After initially finding that the violation was serious but not willful, the board ultimately concluded the incident was a willful violation and reinstated the $40,000 penalty. The board relied in part upon 8 CCR §2320.3, which requires contractors to treat all electrical equipment as energized until tested or proven otherwise.

The contractor then filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The Superior Court denied the petition and entered judgment. The electrical contractor appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal affirmed. Rick's Electric, Inc. v. California Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board, ____ Cal.App.4th ____, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5236 (Cal.App. 2000)

Section 334 of the CalOSHA regulations establishes two alternate tests for determining whether a violation is willful. Under the first test, the division must prove "the employer committed an intentional and knowing, as contrasted with inadvertent violation, and the employer is conscious of the fact that what he is doing constitutes a violation of a safety law.…" 8 CCR §334(e). Under the second test, the Division must prove that the employer, even though "not consciously violating a safety law…, was aware that an unsafe or hazardous condition existed and made no reasonable effort to eliminate the condition." Id.

Regarding the first test (characterized by the court as the "intent and knowledge" test), the court found irrelevant what the contractor's foreman may have subjectively and in good faith believed about the cable. The contractor "knew that whenever it came upon an electrical cable, it had to take one of two actions before commencing any work on that cable: either test the cable to see if it was in fact energized or ensure the person working on the cable had sufficient training and protective equipment before starting the work."

Regarding the second test (the "awareness and elimination of hazard test"), the court found that the violation was willful because the contractor was aware of a hazardous condition and failed to take reasonable steps to remove the condition. The court noted the contractor had actual notice that it was required by the regulations to treat the cable as a hazardous condition. The court also noted that the hazard could have been rendered safe by use of a simple tester, which all of the contractor's electricians were supposed to carry on their person.


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 John Ralls in our San Francisco office at 415-848-3362 or at rallsj@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