The Legal Ramifications of Dog Bites: Understanding Dog Owner Liability
Dog bites can lead to severe physical and emotional consequences for victims. Understanding the legal implications surrounding dog bites is essential for pet owners and the community. This blog will discuss the basics of dog owner liability and break down the factors that influence legal responsibility.
Understanding Dog Owner Liability
When a dog bites someone, the owner may be held legally responsible for the injuries caused. This liability generally falls under two primary legal frameworks: negligence and strict liability. Each has criteria and implications for both dog owners and victims.
1. Negligence
A dog owner can be held liable if it can be proven that they failed to exercise reasonable care in controlling or supervising their dog. Key factors to consider are:
Knowledge of Aggression: If the owner was aware (or should have been aware) of their dog’s aggressive tendencies but failed to take proper safety precautions, they may be held negligent. For instance, if a dog has previously bitten someone or shown aggressive behavior, the owner should take extra measures to prevent future incidents.
Proper Containment: Owners are expected to secure their dogs within appropriate boundaries, such as fenced yards or leashed walks. Failure to do so can result in liability if the dog escapes and bites someone.
Training and Socialization: Owners have a responsibility to train their dogs and make sure they are well-socialized. An untrained dog that attacks a person tends to reflect negligent ownership.
2. Strict Liability
In some jurisdictions, dog owners can be held liable for bites under the principle of strict liability, regardless of whether the owner was negligent. This means that if a dog bites someone, the owner is automatically responsible for the resulting injuries. Strict liability typically applies if:
The Bite Occurred in a Public Place: If a dog attacks a person who is legally in a public space, the owner may be held liable.
The Victim Was Not Trespassing: If the victim was on private property with permission or in a public area, the owner may face strict liability, even if they took reasonable precautions.
3. Breed-Specific Laws
Certain states have breed-specific laws that impose stricter liability on owners of certain dog breeds known for aggression. These laws can influence how liability is assessed and may result in increased legal consequences for owners of those breeds.
Defenses Against Liability
Dog owners may have several defenses against liability claims, including:
Provocation: If the dog was provoked or threatened by the victim, the owner can argue that the bite was a response.
Trespassing: If the victim was unlawfully on the owner’s property, this could also be a valid defense in some jurisdictions.
Assumption of Risk: If the victim knew of the dog’s aggressive nature and chose to approach or interact with the dog anyway, the owner may use this defense.
Conclusion
Understanding dog owner liability is essential for anyone who owns or interacts with dogs. The consequences of a dog bite can be significant, not only for the victim but also for the owner. By being informed and taking responsible measures, like proper training and following local laws, dog owners can help prevent incidents.
If you or someone you know has been involved in a dog bite incident, it’s important to reach out to a legal professional as soon as possible.
Effective Risk Management for Nursing Facilities: Insurance Insights on Retaliation Claims
This is the first in a series of articles addressing critical issues in risk management and insurance for skilled nursing facilities.
Owners and operators of skilled nursing facilities know that a claim or lawsuit against their facility is not a matter of if, but when. Procuring the proper insurance is critical to effectively managing and mitigating these risks. A professional liability insurance policy should provide coverage for the facility and its directors, administrators, and employees from claims of negligent care.
Unfortunately, merely purchasing a professional liability policy without further scrutiny can leave a facility uninsured for certain claims. These policies incorporate exclusions and conditions that insurers could cite to attempt to limit coverage, particularly for claims that allege intentional injury to a patient resident. For example, an injured patient could allege that her injury was not the result of mere negligence, but instead resulted from retaliation by the facility or the facility’s employee in response to a prior complaint. These retaliation claims pose an increased risk to a facility and its insurance coverage, regardless of whether they are alleged as an intentional tort under a state’s common law or as a violation of a state’s anti-retaliation statute.
In states where retaliation is specifically barred by statute, state laws can create additional liability and damages exposure for claims brought by residents who file formal complaints or bring regulatory actions against nursing facilities alleging retaliation. Earlier this year, for example, the Illinois Legislature passed a new anti-retaliation statute for nursing facilities, House Bill 2474, that broadens the scope of anti-retaliation protections. The Illinois bill, which has passed both houses and been sent to the governor’s office for signature, does not require a formal complaint, but can be triggered by a resident taking more informal action, such as making a request to the facility related to the resident’s care. In addition to potential liability for consequential damages, Illinois HB 2474 also makes nursing facilities liable to the plaintiff for attorneys’ fees and additional damages “in an amount equal to the average monthly billing rate for Medicaid recipients in the facility.” The damage provisions of Illinois HB 2474 differentiate it from other broad anti-retaliation statutes. For example, Minnesota expanded its Patients’ Bill of Rights in 2020 to protect nursing facility residents from retaliation for a host of actions, including advocating “for necessary or improved care or services” (M.S.A. § 144.6512). However, Minnesota’s statute does not provide for a private cause of action for residents to sue the facility.
Even if a state’s anti-retaliation statute does not specify additional damages or provide a private cause of action, retaliation claims brought as common law torts can nevertheless pose the risk of enhanced damages based on the facility’s perceived culpability – a risk not found in ordinary negligence actions.
Retaliation claims are a significant and thorny example of circumstances where allegations of negligent and intentional conduct can intertwine. Unless a statute identifies certain acts that constitute retaliation per se, the patient must necessarily prove an intent to retaliate – retaliation cannot be the result of mere negligence. But ordinary negligence and intentional retaliation could manifest in factually identical ways – with intent being the only distinguishing factor. For example, a resident allegedly injured in a fall while being helped out of bed by a facility employee could assert negligence. But if that same resident had complained to management about the quality of their care prior to the fall, the resident could also allege retaliation, asserting that they were allowed to fall in retaliation for the complaint.
Insurers could seize on retaliation allegations to deny coverage under several exclusions, including exclusions for expected and intended conduct and for willful violations of laws or regulations. Depending on the scope of the policy exclusions, insurers could assert that otherwise insured negligence claims are excluded retaliation claims.
To maximize the potential coverage for claims of retaliation or other intentional conduct bolted on to ordinary negligence claims, insureds should understand that the expected and intended exclusion does not exclude claims that an insured acted intentionally; the insurer must also prove that the insured intended to cause the alleged harm. Unfortunately, a retaliation claim arguably alleges that intent to cause harm if the actions can be attributed to the insured entity or individual.
Insureds can take four steps to mitigate anticipated insurer defenses to coverage for retaliation claims:
First, insureds should seek language limiting the intentional conduct exclusion. The best limiting language would require a final adjudication of intentional conduct at trial (and after exhaustion of all appeals). Insurers could not invoke this exclusion in cases settled before trial.
Second, insureds should confirm that any exclusions based on alleged willful statutory violations do not inadvertently encompass statutory retaliation claims.
Third, because insurers may attempt to allocate liability among the negligence and retaliation claims to reduce their obligations for a settlement prior to trial, insureds should insist on favorable allocation provisions that do not leave the allocation to insurers’ discretion but instead require reasonable allocation based on an objective assessment of the claim.
Finally, insureds should insist on policy provisions requiring the insurer to defend (or preferably pay the defense of) all asserted claims – including arguably excluded claims – as long as at least one claim potentially falls within coverage.
These four steps will provide insureds with additional insurance protection against statutory retaliation claims by limiting the defenses that insurers could otherwise assert in response to these claims. And as always, policyholders should scrutinize their professional liability insurance policies during renewal to maximize the coverage available to them. Many coverage enhancements do not impact premium – but they do require insureds’ diligence and awareness of coverage quagmires before binding insurance, as this discussion of retaliation claims shows.
Listen to this post
Pedestrian Fatalities Up Almost Half from a Decade Ago
During the first half of 2024, drivers killed 3,304 pedestrians in the United States, a 2.6% decrease from the same period in 2023, according to a new study from the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA). However, this decline does not overshadow the alarming trend of rising pedestrian fatalities over the past decade, which have increased by 48% since 2014, translating to 1,072 more deaths.
Pedestrian Fatality Trends
Each year, the GHSA releases the first comprehensive look at pedestrian traffic death trends for the first six months of the year, using preliminary data from State Highway Safety Offices (SHSOs). The analysis indicates that while pedestrian fatalities decreased slightly from last year, they remain 12% higher than in 2019, emphasizing a concerning trajectory for road safety.
The slight decrease in pedestrian fatalities in early 2024 aligns with a broader trend in overall traffic deaths. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), total roadway fatalities dropped 3.2% during the first half of 2023. Nevertheless, the overall numbers remain significantly higher than those recorded five and ten years ago. In the first half of 2024, there were 18,720 roadway deaths, showing a 10% increase from 17,025 in the same period of 2019 and a 25% rise from 15,035 in 2014.
At the state level, the GHSA report reveals mixed results: pedestrian fatalities decreased in 22 states, while 23 states and the District of Columbia (D.C.) saw increases. Five states reported no change in their numbers. Notably, seven states experienced consecutive decreases in pedestrian fatalities, whereas four states faced two significant increases.
Why Are Roads So Dangerous for Pedestrians?
There is a combination of factors contributing to this rising danger for pedestrians. A decline in traffic enforcement since 2020 has allowed dangerous driving behaviors—such as speeding, distracted driving, and driving under the influence—to grow rapidly. Additionally, many roadways are designed primarily for fast-moving vehicles, often neglecting the needs of pedestrians. Many communities lack infrastructure – such as missing sidewalks and poorly lit crosswalks – that also help protect pedestrians. Furthermore, the growing presence of larger, heavier vehicles on roads increases the risk of severe injuries or fatalities in pedestrian accidents.
What Can Be Done?
To tackle this pedestrian safety crisis, the GHSA advocates for an approach that establishes a strong safety net that can protect everyone on the road. A crucial part of this strategy is traffic enforcement focused on dangerous driving behaviors – like speeding, and impaired or distracted driving – that disproportionately endanger pedestrians.
In summary, while there are signs of progress in addressing pedestrian safety, the statistics reveal a pressing need for ongoing efforts to protect those who walk on our roads. By strengthening enforcement, improving infrastructure, and promoting safe practices among both drivers and pedestrians, we can work toward reversing this tragic trend and ensuring safer streets for everyone.
The Impact of California’s Proposition 22 on Rideshare Accident Liability
When California voters approved Proposition 22, it significantly impacted the status of rideshare drivers, redefining them as independent contractors rather than employees. This distinction has substantial implications for accident liability in the rideshare industry, particularly for companies like Uber and Lyft. Determining who is liable in the event of a rideshare accident has become an […]
Oregon Court of Appeals Issues Three Different Defense Opinions
Oregon’s Court of Appeals was busy issuing three different defense opinions on March 19, 2025. Circuit court errs by awarding attorneys’ fees based on a contingency fee.The first was Griffith v. Property and Casualty Ins. Co. of Hartford, where a homeowner submitted a fire loss and alleged the insurer did not pay the benefits owed quickly enough. The insureds filed a complaint, the insurer answered, and then a global settlement occurred. The insureds then filed a motion for summary judgment seeking prejudgment interest per ORS 82.010 as well as attorneys’ fees per ORS 742.061(1). They also sought costs as a prevailing party. The circuit court denied interest because no judgment had been entered and costs because there was no prevailing party, but granted $221,179.27 in attorneys’ fees. Both sides appealed. The insureds’ appeal about prejudgment interest was rejected for procedural reasons. The circuit court order on costs was affirmed because there was no prevailing party. Griffith is noteworthy only for its ruling about attorneys’ fees. The insurer did not dispute that ORS 742.061(1) applied or that the insureds were entitled to attorneys’ fees. It disputed only how the circuit court calculated the amount of the award. The circuit court determined that amount was a percentage of the insureds’ recovery. The Court of Appeals held that this was error.
When an award of attorneys’ fees is permitted, ORS 20.075 provides factors to determine the amount to award. Its factors generally align with the lodestar method. Although a percentage of the recovery might be appropriate in some circumstances, Griffith concluded the “lodestar method is the prevailing method for determining the reasonableness of a fee award in cases, such as this, involving a statutory fee-shifting award, even when, as here, the insured has retained counsel on a contingency-fee basis.” Further, the award “must be reasonable; a windfall award of attorney fees is to be avoided.” The Court of Appeals concluded using a percentage of the recovery was inappropriate in this instance. This is because coverage was never disputed, and the claim was immediately accepted. By the time the complaint was filed, the insurer had made several payments and was still adjusting the loss. There was minimal litigation and the delay paying the full claim “was caused by circumstances outside of the parties’ control.” The Court of Appeals ultimately concluded that the insureds had not met their burden to demonstrate the fees they sought were reasonable. The case was remanded to redetermine the fees owed.
No really, the recreational use statute applies to a city park.In Laxer v. City of Portland, the plaintiff entered Mount Tabor Park to “walk its trails” but tripped and fell due to a hole in the pavement. The plaintiff sued the City, but the circuit court granted the City’s motion to dismiss based on Oregon’s recreational use statute, ORS 105.682. The plaintiff appealed. Among other arguments, the plaintiff argued the paved road in the park was like a public sidewalk and thus exempt from ORS 105.682. The Court of Appeals concluded that while there are limits to ORS 105.682, “generally available land connected with recreation” is still typically protected. Since Mount Tabor Park is clearly connected with recreation, the dismissal was affirmed.
Defense verdict affirmed in slip-and-fall case.In Fisk v. Fred Meyer Stores, Inc., where a customer slipped “on a three-foot by five-foot laminated plastic sign, which had fallen from its stand onto the public walkway.” The sign belonged to the store and was placed there by store employees. The case was tried and produced a defense verdict.
On appeal, the customer conceded there was no evidence to prove the store (1) placed the sign on the ground, (2) knew the sign was on the ground and did not use reasonable diligence to remove it, or (3) the sign had been on the ground for enough time that the store should have discovered it. The customer instead argued the circuit court erred by not giving a res ipsa loquitur instruction. Although Oregon case law has concluded res ipsa loquitur does not apply to slip and falls, the customer argued this was not a slip and fall because an object caused the fall.
Fisk affirmed the circuit court’s refusal to give the res ipsa loquitur instruction. The customer’s attempted legal distinction was meaningless. “We agree with defendant that because plaintiff slipped on an object on the ground, plaintiff’s claim is correctly characterized as a slip-and-fall claim.”
Do You Know What To Ask A Personal Injury Attorney During a Consultation?
After being involved in a car accident you probably have a lot running through your mind. You may be wondering how you’re going to cover the damages, even if you’re not the at-fault driver. Chances are, another question that pops up is do you need an accident attorney? The answer to this last question is […]
The Role of a Lawyer in Car Accident Mediation and Settlement
Finding yourself involved in a car accident on the road is a troubling experience. Regardless of who was at fault for the incident, you may need to equip yourself with a lawyer who can help you negotiate with insurance or navigate the legal system. The majority of civil cases end without a formal trial, meaning […]
The Ripple Effects of Car Accidents on Local Economies in Alabama
Every day, you likely pass by at least one car accident on your commute. You may sympathize with the plight of the victims, who will now have painful injuries and a mountain of expenses as a result of the crash. What you might not realize though is that there is a ripple effect with every […]
The Hidden Impact of Sports-Related Head Injuries
Millions of Americans participate in sports and recreational activities for physical fitness, teamwork, socializing, and more. However, the risk of serious injuries from these sports can often be overlooked or forgotten. March is Brain Injury Awareness Month, and since recreational activities offer a significant risk of head injuries, we are going to discuss the different types of sports-related head injuries and symptoms.
Types of Sports-Related Head Injuries
1. Concussions
A concussion is a type of mild traumatic brain injury caused by a blow to the head or a violent shaking of the head and body. Symptoms include:
Headaches
Sensitivity to light and noise
Dizziness
Nausea
Confusion
A majority of traumatic brain injuries that occur each year are mild or concussions. While most people recover from concussions with proper management, studies show repeated concussions can lead to more severe long-term issues.
2. Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)
Traumatic brain injuries cover a broader range of injuries, including concussions and more severe forms. TBIs result from external forces that cause brain damage. Symptoms vary widely and can include:
Loss of consciousness
Mood swings
Memory loss
Difficulty concentrating
Physical coordination issues
Around 2.8 million people sustain a traumatic brain injury each year in the U.S. The severity of a TBI can range from mild to severe, affecting an individual’s cognitive functioning and quality of life.
3. Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE)
CTE is a degenerative brain condition linked to repeated head injuries, such as concussions. Symptoms often do not become visible until years after the injuries occur and can include:
Memory loss
Depression
Impulsive behavior
Progressive dementia
Aggression
CTE is especially concerning for athletes in contact sports like football, where repeated head trauma is common.
4. Second-Impact Syndrome (SIS)
Second-impact syndrome happens when an athlete suffers a second concussion before fully recovering from a previous one. This can lead to severe and potentially life-threatening complications, such as rapid brain swelling and loss of consciousness. SIS emphasizes how critical proper management and recovery are after a concussion.
Injury Prevention
Sports and recreational activities contribute to over 21% of all traumatic brain injuries in American children and teens, according to The American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS).
Preventing head injuries in sports requires a well-rounded approach:
Education: Athletes, coaches, and parents should be told about the risks associated with head injuries and the importance of recognizing symptoms.
Proper Equipment: Using appropriate protective gear, such as helmets and headgear, can reduce the risk of injury.
Enforcing Safety: Sports organizations should prioritize and consistently enforce safety rules.
Monitoring Health: Athletes should be encouraged to report head injury symptoms immediately. Regular medical evaluations can also help manage recovery effectively.
By understanding the different types of sports-related head injuries and their potential consequences, we can work together to create a safer environment for athletes. Prioritizing education, prevention, and proper management is essential for protecting the health and well-being of all participants in sports and recreational activities.
Top 10 Sports with the Most Injuries
When it comes to sports and recreational activities, physical activity, social interaction, and teamwork are just a few of the many benefits. However, these activities also come with the risk of injuries. From sprains and fractures to concussions, certain sports are associated with higher injury rates than others. We’ll discuss the sports most commonly linked to injuries and the common sports injuries for different age groups.
Sports Most Associated with Injuries
In the United States, about 30 million children and teens participate in organized sports, resulting in over 3.5 million injuries each year. Sports involving contact and collisions like football tend to result in more injuries compared to non-contact activities like swimming. Nonetheless, all sports can lead to injuries from direct contact, overuse, or improper techniques.
According to the National Safety Council (NSC), the following sports and recreational activities reported the highest number of injuries in 2023:
Exercise, exercise equipment: 482,886
Bicycles: 405,688
Basketball: 332,391
Football: 263,585
Skateboards, scooters: 221,313
Soccer: 212,423
Playground equipment: 190,942
Swimming, pools: 166,011
Baseball, softball: 139,940
Trampolines: 111,212
Types of Sports Injuries
There are two main categories of sports injuries: acute and chronic. Acute injuries happen suddenly, mostly due to blows, falls, or twists, and commonly result in sprains or dislocations. The most frequently reported sports injuries include sprains and strains. Chronic injuries, however, develop gradually over time from repetitive strain, such as stress fractures or tennis elbow.
The most common causes of sports injuries include falls, collisions, overexertion, and being struck by objects.
Age Considerations
Younger athletes are generally more susceptible to acute injuries like ligament tears and fractures while participating in sports. However, sports activities account for over 20% of traumatic brain injuries among children in the U.S.
On the other hand, older athletes may not experience the same severity of injuries but are increasingly prone to conditions like knee problems, rotator cuff injuries, and Achilles tendonitis. These injuries can stem from natural aging or from maintaining an active lifestyle.
Conclusion
Injuries are an inherent risk in many sports, but understanding the types of injuries connected with specific activities can help reduce these risks. By promoting safety and awareness, we can continue to enjoy the benefits of sports while minimizing the potential for injury. If you or a loved one have been injured while playing a sport or recreational activity, don’t hesitate to seek help from a personal injury attorney. Remember, prioritizing safety means playing smart!
California Workplace Safety Update: OSHAB Holds Employer Can Impliedly Consent to Inspection
In a significant decision regarding workplace inspections, the California Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (OSHAB) upheld citations against a California employer after finding the employer had consented to an inspection when a third-party individual who was not an employee and did not have actual authority to consent cooperated with an inspector.
Quick Hits
The California OSHAB ruled that an employer can imply consent to a Cal/OSHA inspection through the actions of a third party, even if that individual lacks actual authority to grant such consent.
The board held that Cal/OSHA may establish a prima facie case that an employer did not maintain required records by showing that the employer failed to comply with requests for such records, which shifts the burden of proof to an employer to show that the records do exist.
The board clarified that a single violation of an IIPP can be the basis for a “serious” violation of employers’ duty to identify and correct workplace hazards
The board further clarified that a first aid-trained individual need not be physically present at the jobsite, but available to respond to an incident within minutes.
OSHAB, in Arana Residential and Commercial Painting, Inc., found that the employer, a painting service company, had impliedly consented to a California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) inspection following a workplace safety incident when an individual who presented herself as acting on behalf of the company agreed to produce requested documents and scheduled witness interviews.
OSHAB then upheld two citations. The citations alleged (1) the employer failed to “keep required records of scheduled and periodic safety inspections and employee safety training” and (2) a serious violation of the Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) regulations for failing “to identify, evaluate, and correct unsafe work practices.”
However, the board vacated another allegation that the “[e]mployer failed to ensure the availability of a suitable number of persons trained in first aid at the job site,” finding that Cal/OSHA had not met its burden of proof.
Background
The case involved a workplace safety incident in which an employee slipped and fell while climbing scaffolding, resulting in an injury. The fire department that responded to the incident and the employer reported the incident to Cal/OSHA, though reporting was not technically required because it did not result in a “serious injury.”
An inspector with Cal/OSHA later contacted the employer, Arana, and reached an individual who identified herself as the employer’s workers’ compensation insurance broker and safety consultant. This person was not an employee of Arana, and, at times, told the inspector that an investigation was unnecessary since the injury to the worker was not “serious” or “reportable,” but agreed to produce documents.
However, according to the decision, the inspector was never told that the broker / consultant lacked the authority to consent to the inspection. Further, in the back-and-forth communication, the broker / consultant had sent the inspector several emails indicating the “[e]mployer’s intention of submitting requested documents and scheduling employee interviews.” Arana’s owner was copied on those emails. Still, the employer did not submit the requested documents, though it later produced some at a hearing.
Consent to an Inspection
The California Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSH) Act gives the Cal/OSHA broad authority to inspect places of employment to protect workplace safety and health. If an employer refuses to consent to an inspection, Cal/OSHA may seek an investigative subpoena or a warrant under the Cal/OSH Act. According to the decision, whether consent was given is a fact-specific inquiry.
Arana argued that the third-party broker / consultant did not have the authority to consent to the inspection and never fully consented to the inspection. However, OSHAB found that the third party’s communications and the employer’s actions indicated consent to the inspection. Specifically, OSHAB said the third party’s statements and conduct supported a finding that the broker / consultant did have authority to consent, and even assuming the third party did not, the inspector’s “belief” that the person had the authority “was reasonable and based upon good faith.”
OSHAB also rejected Arana’s arguments that consent had been withdrawn based on objections to the validity of the inspection, in particular assertions that the injury that led to the inspection was “not reportable” and, therefore, Cal/OSHA had no jurisdiction. Arana also argued that demands the inspection be closed with a finding of no citations and its failure to produce documents should have been interpreted as a refusal of consent.
However, OSHAB stated that “[a] workplace injury or accident need not be ‘reportable’ under [Cal/OSH] for the Division to exercise its jurisdiction in investigating the injury or accident.” Nonetheless, OSHAB found that the record did not indicate that Arana had consistently refused consent and had instead indicated that documents might be forthcoming.
“Employer’s disagreement over whether any violation existed, and its desire for the inspection to be closed, are not tantamount to refusing consent, particularly in light of Employer’s statements and conduct indicating its intention to cooperate with the investigation,” OSHAB stated in the decision.
Failure to Maintain Required Records
Additionally, Arana had argued that the citation for failure to maintain records was an improper penalty for failing to respond to the inspector’s document requests. OSHAB ruled that when an employer fails to provide requested records, “it is both reasonable and within” Cal/OSHA’s authority to “conclude that the records do not exist and issue a citation.”
OSHAB further rejected Arana’s argument that such a decision improperly shifts the burden of proof to the employer. The board held that Cal/OSHA may establish a prima facie case by showing that it requested legally required documents but did not receive them. After such a showing, the burden does shift to an employer. In this case, OSHAB said Arana had “failed to present any evidence to challenge” that the records do not exist.
Availability of First Aid–Trained Individual
However, OSHAB sided with Arana, finding Cal/OSHA had failed to meet its burden to prove that a suitable number of employees trained in first aid were not “available” to respond to the workplace safety incident. Even though a person with proper training was not physically present at the jobsite when the incident occurred, the employer had argued that a properly trained person was available to respond and, in fact, did return to the site within minutes of the incident. The Board said its prior precedents indicate that a trained person need not be physically present at all times but available within minutes.
Failure to Correct Workplace Hazards
According to the decision, the employer submitted a video re-enactment of the incident to Cal/OSHA as evidence. In the video, a supervisor and another employee recreated the circumstances leading up to the falling incident, in which the employee climbed up scaffolding instead of using a ladder. Based on that video, Cal/OSHA issued the citation for failure to correct hazards.
OSHAB corrected prior cases issued as decisions After reconsideration, which have been cited as holding that a single IIPP violation cannot be the basis for a citation. OSHAB said this is incorrect, and to the contrary, the board “has held that a single deficiency regarding an essential element of an IIPP or its implementation may support a violation.”
The board then asserted that the video, in which a supervisor “direct[ed] an employee to engage in an activity that had already caused an accident” was sufficient for Cal/OSHA to conclude that there was a “deficiency regarding an essential element” of the employer’s IIPP and thus a violation.
“In addition, the videotape is proof the violation occured [sic], regardless of why it was made,” OSHAB said. “An employer’s desire for evidence in response to a safety inspection does not entitle an employer to generate that evidence by exposing an employee to a safety hazard.”
Next Steps
The Arana decision underscores the importance of clearly and consistently communicating consent or a refusal of consent to a Cal/OSHA inspection. The board interpreted mere statements to a Cal/OSHA inspector that requested documents would be provided as sufficient to show the employer had consented to the investigation, and thereby gave Cal/OSHA jurisdiction to issue citations for any alleged violations discovered. The use of the third-party broker / safety consultant was fraught with miscommunications and a lack of understanding of the consent to the inspection.
The Arana decision further serves as a crucial reminder for employers about California’s requirements to maintain proper safety documentation, ensure the availability of trained first aid personnel, and promptly address unsafe work practices. Employers may want to consider proactive steps to review their safety programs, ensure all records are current and accessible, and train their staff on proper safety protocols.
Distracted Driving Laws and Penalties: What You Need to Know
As Distracted Driving Awareness Month approaches in April, we are reminded to adhere to distracted driving laws, aimed at making our roads safer for everyone year-round. With an increase in smartphone use and other distractions, it’s essential to be aware of the laws and penalties surrounding distracted driving. In this post, we’ll break down distracted driving laws and the consequences.
What is Distracted Driving?
Distracted driving is any activity that diverts attention from driving including texting, talking on the phone, eating, changing the radio, or even chatting with passengers. According to the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning, distracted driving is a factor in thousands of crashes each year.
The Laws
While distracted driving laws can vary by state, there are some common elements that many states share:
1. Texting While Driving
Most states have strict laws against texting while driving. The most dangerous form of distracted driving is texting, since it requires visual, manual, and cognitive attention.
Michigan has a primary enforcement law for texting, which means law enforcement can stop and ticket a driver solely for texting, even if no other traffic violation has occurred.
2. Use of Hands-Free Devices
While some states allow the use of hands-free devices, others have restrictions. It’s important to familiarize yourself with local laws regarding Bluetooth or other hands-free technologies to avoid fines.
3. Other Distractions
Driving while distracted by activities such as eating, grooming, or interacting with passengers can also be penalized, especially if these actions lead to dangerous driving behavior.
Penalties for Distracted Driving
The penalties for distracted driving can vary significantly depending on the specific violation. Common consequences include:
1. Fines
Many states impose fines for distracted driving offenses. These can range from $50 to several hundred dollars, depending on the severity of the violation.
2. Points on Your License
Distracted driving can lead to points being added to your driving record. Accumulating too many points can result in higher insurance rates and even license suspension.
3. Increased Insurance Premiums
Insurance companies often raise premiums for drivers with distracted driving citations. Over time, this can lead to a significant financial burden.
4. Potential Criminal Charges
In severe cases, especially if distracted driving leads to an accident with injuries or fatalities, the driver may face criminal charges. This can result in hefty fines, community service, or even jail time.
Stay Focused
Here are some tips to help minimize distractions and stay vigilant behind the wheel:
Put your phone away: Consider using “Do Not Disturb” mode while driving.
Plan ahead: Set your GPS and music before you start driving.
Avoid multitasking: Eat before you drive, and save interactions with passengers for when you’re parked.
Conclusion
Understanding distracted driving laws and their penalties is vital for all drivers. By staying informed and committed to safe driving practices, you contribute to safer roads for everyone