Commissioner of Labor v. Eustis Cable Enterprises, LTD, 206 A.3d 1260

On March 11, 2016 an Eustis truck, while backing in the southbound breakdown lane on Route 7 during road-construction, struck and killed a flagger.
The Vermont Commissioner of Labor investigated and cited Eustis for two violations of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.601: audible backup alarm (§1926.601(b)(4)) and assuring safety devices were in safe condition at the start of each shift (§1926.601(b)(14)); total fines $11,340.
At the VOSHA hearing the officer dismissed the audible-alarm citation but found a violation of §1926.601(b)(14) based on a conclusion that the driver failed to conduct required pre-shift checks; $5,670 penalty imposed.
The officer relied in part on six missing Driver Vehicle Inspection Reports over a six-week period to infer Eustis was on notice that inspections were not being performed.
The VOSHA review board and the civil division affirmed; on appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court, the Court held the record lacked evidence to impute constructive knowledge to Eustis and reversed, dismissing the §1926.601(b)(14) citation and penalty.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commissioner)	Defendant's Argument (Eustis)	Held
Whether §1926.601 applies because truck was on a highway or an off‑highway jobsite	Jobsite was closed to public traffic; therefore "off‑highway" and §1926.601 applies	Truck was operating on a public highway breakdown lane and thus not an "off‑highway" motor vehicle under §1926.601(a)	Not decided (court found resolution unnecessary because citation reversed on other grounds)
Whether driver failed to conduct the required pre‑shift safety inspection	Absence of Driver Vehicle Inspection Report for the accident day supports finding inspector did not perform check	Driver testified he would have performed a check; written record not required so absence insufficient	Not decided (court did not resolve because employer liability turned on notice)
Whether Eustis had knowledge or constructive knowledge of the driver's failure to inspect	Missing inspection reports for six of 34 days shows Eustis should have been on notice of inspection lapses	Missing reports do not establish the driver worked or used the vehicle on those dates; no evidence supports imputing notice to Eustis	Held for Eustis — Commissioner failed to prove employer knowledge; inference of notice was mere speculation; citation vacated

In re Ferrera & Fenn Gravel Pit, 195 Vt. 138, 87 A.3d 483 (Vt. 2013) (standard of review on record).
Whittington v. Office of Prof'l Regulation, 195 Vt. 181, 87 A.3d 489 (Vt. 2013) (substantial‑evidence review).
N.Y. State Elec. & Gas Corp. v. Sec'y of Labor, 88 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 1996) (employer liability requires proof of knowledge or constructive knowledge).
State v. Wisowaty, 200 Vt. 24, 128 A.3d 876 (Vt. 2015) (factfinder may not bridge gaps with speculation).
Green Mountain Power Corp. v. Comm'r of Labor & Indus., 136 Vt. 15, 383 A.2d 1046 (Vt. 1978) (Vermont adopts federal OSHA standards).