I have a really weird one

"ImmoralMinority" (araimondo) 10/12/2016 at 18:36 • Filed to: None

1

8

I have been defending a Cal/OSHA case in a workplace fatality for some time now. The hearing is Friday, and the government is playing chicken with us. It is Oppo-relevant because it involves a motor vehicle.

The guy crashed an ATV while driving without a helmet in an orchard and died of a head injury. Because it was not a public road, the California Vehicle Code helmet laws do not apply, and strangely enough, Cal/OSHA has never passed a regulation requiring workers on ATVs to wear helmets. But for obvious reasons, the investigator was upset that the guy was not wearing a helmet. So he cited my client for a violation of this regulation (GISO 3381):

(a) Employees working in locations where there is a risk of receiving head injuries from flying or falling objects and/or electric shock and burns shall wear approved head protection in accordance with this section.

(b) When head protection is required, the employer shall provide each employee with head protection that meets the criteria in one of the following standards, which are hereby incorporated by reference:

(1) American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/International Safety Equipment Association (ISEA) Z89.1-2009, “American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection;”

(2) ANSI Z89.1-2003, “American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection;” or

(3) ANSI Z89.1-1997, “American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection.”

(c)(1) The employer shall ensure that the appropriate impact type helmet is selected and used.

Note: Protective helmets are described by impact type and electrical class. All protective helmets required by subsection (b) meet either Type I or Type II impact requirements. Type I helmets are intended to reduce the force of impact resulting from a blow only to the top of the head. Type II helmets are intended to reduce the force of impact resulting from a blow to the top or sides of the head.

(2) The employer shall ensure that the appropriate electrical class of ANSI designated helmet is selected and used in accordance with the following:

(A) When there is no risk of head injury from contact with electrical conductors, and protective helmets are only required to reduce the danger of injury from flying or falling objects, protective helmets shall be ANSI-Z89.1 designated Class C, E, or G.

(B) When there is a risk of head injury from contact with conductors less than 600 volts, protective helmets shall be ANSI-Z89.1 designated Class E or G.

(C) When there is a risk of head injury from contact with conductors greater than 600 volts, protective helmets shall be ANSI-Z89.1 designated Class E.

(3) The employer shall ensure that the head protection provided for each employee exposed to high-voltage electric shock and burns also meets the specifications contained in Section 9.7 “Electrical Insulation” of any of the consensus standards identified in subsection (b) of this section.

(d) Each approved protective helmet required by subsection (b) shall bear the permanent markings required by the ANSI standard under which it was approved. At a minimum, the marking shall identify the manufacturer, ANSI designated standard number and date, and ANSI designated class and impact type of helmet.

(e) Where there is a risk of injury from hair entanglements in moving parts of machinery, combustibles or toxic contaminants, employees shall confine their hair to eliminate the hazard

I think some of you understand the problem. This is a fucking HARD HAT regulation, not a crash helmet regulation. ANSI Z89.1 is the industrial hard hat standard. He would be just as dead if he was wearing one of those, as it would have fallen off, shattered, or both. This is why I hate paying taxes, and rail against government. They are fucking insane. A few years ago, they tried to add DOT certified motorcycle helmets to this regulation, but the effort failed.

They cited my client under a rule that does not apply because they are mad that they don’t have the rule they think they should have. USA! USA! USA!

I think I should call it a day and have a beer.

CB > ImmoralMinority 10/12/2016 at 18:42

1

It could pass and possibly set precedence. It seems like wearing helmets when riding an ATV is a no-brainer (pardon the pun), so the employer should probably be responsible for giving that safety equipment to workers.

But your point about the law they’re using only applying to hard hats means that the case will probably fail. Hopefully they put an actual law in later.

someassemblyrequired > ImmoralMinority 10/12/2016 at 18:52

1

Ugh - this is why I hated working in government. Too many people who made up rules of their own with no basis in law or policy and tried to enforce them on some poor schmuck that caught them on a bad day. Even if there is a tragic outcome, it’s not fair. In civil regulation, setting goals, educating and collaborating with regulated entities help improve outcomes a whole hell of a lot more than busting heads. It’s a reality that’s lost on many public employees.

The Lurktastic Opponaught > ImmoralMinority 10/12/2016 at 19:01

0

My first job out of college was with the USFWS. The bureaucratic bullshit standing in the way of good science was astonishing. Never again.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > ImmoralMinority 10/12/2016 at 19:03

1

Worse still, this becomes case law *and* they write the rule they want for next time in a fit of their own particular idiom (or idiot), and suddenly everybody using any offroad vehicle or tractor of any kind in their job has to wear a helmet, Because CalOSHA. Better wear a full face helmet in that Bobcat...

Urambo Tauro > ImmoralMinority 10/12/2016 at 19:05

0

Hm. That is a difficult one. It probably would have been better for the company to supply appropriate helmets anyway, even though a specific law demanding them isn’t on the books yet. I think CB is right that this could set a precedent. Until then, if the workplace is not required to provide helmets, they could start a new company policy requiring employees to supply their own, and maybe they could get away with that until it becomes the employer’s responsibility.

As for the worker’s death, I really don’t know if it’s appropriate to blame the company. The helmet situation is one thing, but that’s not even what caused the crash itself. Unless there was some kind of mechanical failure or something, the rider made some sort of mistake on his own that caused the crash.

Berang > ImmoralMinority 10/12/2016 at 19:17

1

Of course if he had been wearing a helmet, you wouldn’t even be doing this case. But somehow that is neither the deceased or their employer’s fault, just the government’s?

haveacarortwoorthree2 > ImmoralMinority 10/12/2016 at 19:27

1

So in a substantial number of states (I think only 20 states have universal helmet laws), the deceased worker could have rode his motorcycle to work on public roads doing 65 mph (or more) without a helmet. Then, in OSHA’s world, he would get to work and put on a hard hat to ride an ATV around an orchard. Makes sense. (I know Cal is one of the states with a universal helmet law, so maybe the hypo isn’t as “bad” there, but c’mon man.)

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > ImmoralMinority 10/13/2016 at 08:14

0

So is Cal/OSHA self funding like my great states OSHA? Because nothing says “we want to collaborate with you on safety” like knowing that if OSHA shows up the only thing they want to do is write you as many fines as they can to improve their budget.