895 F.3d 1063
8th Cir.2018Background
- Eric Roach fell 36 feet to his death at a Kansas City warehouse construction site while not connected to fall‑protection anchorage, though he had a harness and connectors.
- DNRB was charged and convicted after a bench trial under 29 U.S.C. § 666(e) for willfully violating OSHA fall‑protection regulations (29 C.F.R. §§ 1926.760(a)(1), (b)(1)).
- The district court found DNRB knew of the requirements (prior citation) and imputed a supervisor’s knowledge (Bob Wiechens) based on witness testimony that Wiechens observed Roach unprotected.
- The court concluded DNRB’s failure to require anchorage attachment was a but‑for and foreseeable cause of Roach’s death.
- The district court admitted prior and site‑specific other‑acts evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) to prove knowledge/intent.
- Despite a PSR stating DNRB likely could not pay a fine, the court imposed the statutory maximum $500,000 fine for a Class B misdemeanor; DNRB appealed conviction, evidentiary rulings, and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — violation of standard | Gov: Regulations require employees be protected, not merely supplied equipment; Roach was not attached to anchorage, so violation proven | DNRB: Possession of harness/connectors shows no violation because Roach had protective equipment | Held: Affirmed — regulation requires being protected (connected); sufficient evidence of violation |
| Sufficiency — willfulness | Gov: Prior citation and supervisor knowledge show intentional disregard; supervisor knowledge imputable to employer | DNRB: Denies willful disregard; challenges imputation/credibility findings | Held: Affirmed — supervisor’s knowledge credited and imputed; willfulness satisfied |
| Sufficiency — causation | Gov: But‑for failure to require anchorage caused death; fall was foreseeable and thus proximate cause | DNRB: Argues lack of proof of actual and proximate causation | Held: Affirmed — court found but‑for and foreseeable (legal) causation |
| Admission of other‑acts (Rule 404(b)) | Gov: Evidence relevant to knowledge/intent, similar in kind, supported by proof, not unfairly prejudicial | DNRB: Evidence was improper propensity evidence and notice under 404(b) was insufficient | Held: Affirmed — 404(b) evidence admissible and notice adequate |
| Sentence — fine imposed | Gov: Fine within statutory range; deterrence and respect for law appropriate factors | DNRB: PSR showed inability to pay; court failed to make requisite findings and consider §3553(a) factors | Held: Affirmed — court considered factors and permissibly imposed maximum fine despite PSR conclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Iqbal, 869 F.3d 627 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard for sufficiency review after bench trial)
- Dakota Underground, Inc. v. Sec’y of Labor, 200 F.3d 564 (8th Cir. 2000) ("shall be protected" regulatory language supports employer liability when protection unused)
- Valdak Corp. v. OSHA, 73 F.3d 1466 (8th Cir. 1996) (willfulness requires intentional disregard or plain indifference)
- Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (2014) (but‑for and proximate causation principles for crimes requiring a specified result)
- Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710 (2014) (legal causation analyzed via foreseeability)