Western Oilfields Supply, App. v. Wa State Dept Of Labor & Industries, Res.
75615-0
Wash. Ct. App.Nov 20, 2017Background
- Rain for Rent rented a McElroy Pitbull‑900 pipe fusion machine to a job site; operator Michael Landdeck (infrequent operator, had prior but limited fusion experience) used the machine without the manufacturer's operator manual, which was missing from the unit. Rain for Rent did not provide a copy or require review.
- The Pitbull‑900 manual explicitly warned to "turn the hydraulics off" before entering the unit for maintenance or chip removal and to keep a copy with the machine. The model’s hydraulics and heater plate were separately controlled (heater stayed on when hydraulics off).
- While removing plastic shavings between the facer and jaws, Landdeck did not deactivate the hydraulics, accidentally activated a control with his knee and crushed his hand. He later received written discipline.
- The Department cited Rain for Rent for violating WAC 296‑155‑040(2) (safe place standard). The Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals upheld the citation; Whatcom County Superior Court affirmed. Rain for Rent appealed to the Court of Appeals.
- The Board found Rain for Rent: failed to provide a safe workplace (no manual provided, no insistence on reading manual, no equivalent training), the hazard was recognized and likely to cause serious injury, and feasible abatement (provide manual, require reading, or give task‑specific training) existed. Rain for Rent’s affirmative defense of unpreventable employee misconduct failed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Department) | Defendant's Argument (Rain for Rent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Violation of WAC 296‑155‑040(2) (safe place standard) | Employer failed to furnish a workplace free of a recognized hazard that could cause serious injury; operator lacked manual/training | Employer had safety program and training; incident caused by operator error, not an employer failure | Affirmed: substantial evidence employer failed to provide safe workplace; hazard recognized, likely to cause serious injury, feasible abatement existed |
| Unpreventable employee misconduct affirmative defense | N/A (defense raised by employer) | Employer argued its safety program, training, communication, and enforcement made the misconduct unpreventable | Rejected: employer failed to prove thorough training/communication specific to this machine or that the misconduct was unforeseeable |
| Whether providing the operator manual (or equivalent) was a feasible abatement method | Manual attachment/inspection and task training would materially reduce hazard | Employer argued requiring manuals on every machine is unreasonable and that manuals would not have changed outcome | Board’s proposed abatement (attach manual, require reading, or provide task‑specific training) was feasible and reasonable; manual did apply to the accident scenario |
| Whether WAC 296‑155‑110 (accident prevention program) is the more specific standard | Employer argued accident prevention program was the more specific, applicable regulation | Department relied on the general duty (safe place) standard as applicable to recognized hazardous condition | Rejected: safe place standard was the applicable, more specific standard for this hazard; accident prevention program was not more specific in this setting |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 111 Wn. App. 771 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002) (discusses proof required under general duty/safe place standard and limits of relying on industry practice)
- SuperValu, Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 158 Wn.2d 422 (Wash. 2007) (explains Department’s burden under general duty clause to specify abatement steps and demonstrate feasibility)
- Tri‑State Roofing & Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Comm’n, 685 F.2d 878 (4th Cir. 1982) (recognized‑hazard may be established when hazard is obvious and glaring)
- SeaWorld of Fla., LLC v. Perez, 748 F.3d 1202 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (discusses feasibility and utility of abatement measures under general duty clause)
- Baroid Div. of NL Indus., Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 660 F.2d 439 (10th Cir. 1981) (abatement feasible when economically and technologically capable of being done)