ThyssenKrupp Elevator v. Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Bd. CA3
C077115M
Cal. Ct. App.Oct 4, 2016Background
- ThyssenKrupp mechanics removed an escalator step to diagnose/adjust a noisy handrail; they repeatedly restarted the escalator to test adjustments. One mechanic (Harrell) stood with a foot near/partly on the top step and, when restarting the escalator, his foot slipped into the gap and was amputated.
- CalOSHA issued three citations to ThyssenKrupp: (1) inadequate written lockout/tagout procedures (§ 3314(g)(2)(A)); (2) failure to lock out machinery when servicing (§ 3314(c)); and (3) failure to guard pinch/shear points (§ 4002(a)). Penalties were imposed and later reduced on duplication grounds.
- An ALJ upheld all three counts; the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (Board) affirmed, though it zeroed the penalty for count 3 as duplicative. The superior court denied mandamus relief.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeal reviewed whether the Board’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and whether the regulatory interpretations were correct.
- The appellate court concluded there was insufficient substantial evidence to sustain counts 2 and 3 and reversed in part, directing dismissal of those citations; it upheld the board’s approach on count 1 (procedures) by finding ThyssenKrupp failed to prove an applicable exception.
Issues
| Issue | ThyssenKrupp (Plaintiff) Argument | CalOSHA / Board (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ThyssenKrupp’s generic lockout/tagout manual complied with § 3314(g)(2)(A) or an exception for a "group or type" of machines applied | Manual covered conveyances and industry standards show escalators (or groups) have similar controls, so a single procedure is adequate | Manual failed to show escalators and elevators (or other groups) are sufficiently similar; employer must prove the exception applies | Court affirmed Board: ThyssenKrupp failed to carry burden to show either exception applied; count 1 stands against employer's proof burden |
| Whether § 3314(c) (preventing inadvertent movement) was violated where escalator movement was intentional for repair/testing | Movement was intentional and necessary; §3314(c)(1) allows moving machinery during repairs if employer provides "other methods or means" and training, which ThyssenKrupp provided | Employer should have prevented movement or used mechanical blocking/extension tools; employee placement showed inadequate hazard minimization | Court reversed: no substantial evidence of inadvertent movement and record showed adequate training/other means; count 2 dismissed |
| Whether § 4002(a) (machine guarding) applies to machinery partially dismantled during repairs | §4002(a) targets ordinary operation hazards; it should not apply when guards are removed for repair because other provisions (e.g., §3314(c)(1), §3945) govern repair-time protections | The escalator was operated deliberately and unguarded moving parts caused injury, so §4002(a) applies | Court reversed: §4002(a) does not extend to parts removed for repair; protections for repair-time movement are governed by other rules; count 3 dismissed |
| Whether an employee’s violation of training negates employer’s "adequate training/independent employee act" defense | Employee did violate known safety rules; that lapse does not mean training was inadequate—ThyssenKrupp met the defense criteria | Employee’s placement above the gap showed training was ineffective; employer’s deficient procedures (count 1) undermined defense | Court held employee’s violation did not prove training inadequate; Board lacked substantial evidence to deny the defense for count 2 |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnes v. Chamberlain, 147 Cal. App. 3d 762 (1983) (party claiming exception to general statute must establish it applies)
- Davey Tree Surgery Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Bd., 167 Cal. App. 3d 1232 (1985) (elements of employer defense based on employee independent action and safety program)
- Gaehwiler v. Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Bd., 141 Cal. App. 3d 1041 (1983) (substantial evidence rule applies to Board findings)
- Rick's Electric, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Bd., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1023 (2000) (standard of review for administrative interpretation and Board decisions)
- Teichert Construction v. California Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Bd., 140 Cal. App. 4th 883 (2006) (apply substantial-evidence rule viewing record in light most favorable to Board)