Categories: OSHA

By Margaret C. Thering and Eric J. Conn

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit closed out 2012 with a decision that dealt a blow to employers defending against alleged violations of OSHA standards.  Specifically, in a December 5, 2012 decision in a case on appeal from the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, the Sixth Circuit upheld an OSHA citation that alleged that an employer failed to properly barricade the swing radius of a crane.  See All Erection & Crane Rental Corp. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, No. 11-4242 (6th Cir. Dec. 5, 2012).

The All Erection & Crane Rental case did not involve an employee being struck by the crane, but it is not unusual for OSHA to issue citations in the absence of an injury.  What makes this case unusual and potentially so important is that the Court did not even care whether an employee was ever located in an area where he could have been struck by the crane, but upheld the violation simply on the basis that employees may theoretically be present in that zone of danger.

The long-standing test for OSHA to establish a prima facie violation of an OSHA standard includes OSHA proving by a preponderance of the evidence that:

  1. The cited standard applies to the cited condition;
  2. The requirements of the cited standards were not met by the employer;
  3. The employer knew or should have known with the exercise of reasonable diligence about the hazardous condition; and
  4. Employees were exposed to the hazardous condition.

When determining whether an employee has access to a hazardous condition, fact-finders have traditionally looked at whether an employee has actually been exposed to a hazard.

In the All Erection & Crane Rental Corp. case, however, the Sixth Circuit ruled that an employee does not actually need to be exposed to a hazard before an employer can be found in violation of an OSHA standard.  Rather, the Sixth Circuit held that the fact that an employee could have been exposed to a hazard is enough to find an employer in violation of an OSHA standard.  The court explained:

“The Secretary need only prove that employees had access to the violative condition.  The Secretary need not prove that employees were actually exposed to the condition, but only that it was reasonably predictable that employees would be within the zone of danger.  Furthermore, the Secretary need not prove that the violative condition was actually hazardous, since under a standard such as this, the existence of a hazard is presumed.”

This decision appears to be a departure from settled law, and although it ought to be limited to employers within the Sixth Circuit’s reach (i.e., Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee), if the reasoning is adopted by other Circuits, employers could be opened up to liability for a parade of imagined horribles, as opposed to real world exposures.

Back to Workforce Bulletin Blog

Search This Blog

Blog Editors

Related Services



Jump to Page


Sign up to receive an email notification when new Workforce Bulletin posts are published:

Privacy Preference Center

When you visit any website, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalized web experience. Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.

Performance Cookies

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.