Marpac Construction Llc, V. Department Of Labor & Industries, 82200-4

Marpac was general contractor on a West Seattle apartment project bordered by energized high-voltage lines; Seattle City Light had flagged only the east-side line.
Superintendent Todd Weeks never contacted the utility to confirm line voltages and assumed they were 26–50 kV.
Marpac continued work under the lines (including crane operations and a forklift with a boom attachment) despite subcontractor concerns.
On Sept. 26, 2016, crane rigging contacted the power lines during a lift; two workers suffered serious electrocution injuries.
DLI cited six violations (three serious, three serious-willful) and assessed $133,500; Marpac appealed only the three willful classifications.
The Board and King County Superior Court upheld the willful determinations; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Whether failure to determine power-line voltage and use required encroachment precautions (WAC 296-155-53408(2)(b)) was willful	Marpac: acted in good faith; used a 15-foot zone and believed Table 4 allowed a 10-foot clearance for ≤50 kV	DLI: Marpac never confirmed voltage with the utility, could not rely on Option 3, and should have used more protective Option 2 (20 ft); continuing work showed indifference	Affirmed willful — failure to confirm voltage and default to less protective measures showed plain indifference to safety
2) Whether operating crane/modified forklift under energized lines without deenergizing/grounding violated (WAC 296-155-53408(2)(d)(i)) willfully	Marpac: did not realize attaching a boom made the forklift subject to crane rules and took steps to keep 10 ft clearance	DLI: exceptions did not apply; ignorance and continued use of equipment capable of encroaching shows indifference	Affirmed willful — operating the modified forklift under lines without required precautions supports willfulness
3) Whether failure to designate a qualified lift director (WAC 296-155-53401) was willful	Marpac: Williams was assigned to perform lift director duties	DLI: Williams denied being lift director, lacked training, and told supervisors he was not qualified	Affirmed willful — either no lift director was appointed or an unqualified person was assigned, demonstrating indifference

Shimmick Constr. Co., Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 12 Wn. App. 2d 770 (2020) (standard of review for Board decisions; construing WISHA/agency deference)
Frank Coluccio Constr. Co. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 181 Wn. App. 25 (2014) (substantial evidence standard for agency findings)
Elder Demolition, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 149 Wn. App. 799 (2009) (willful violation defined as intentional disregard or plain indifference)
Brock v. Morello Bros. Constr., Inc., 809 F.2d 161 (1st Cir. 1987) (plain indifference test for willfulness)
Ga. Elec. Co. v. Marshall, 595 F.2d 309 (5th Cir. 1979) (employer ignorance of safety rules can support willful finding)