Martin Painting and Coating Company, Case Study Example

Legal Proceedings

The appellant, Martin Painting and Coating Company, had been charged with committing a serious violation of the electrical power safety regulations 29 C.F.R. § 1926.400(c) (1), issued according to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq.  The violation resulted in the electrocution fatality of Glenn Stonerock, on October 23, 1975.  The appellant requested a review under 29 U.S.C. § 660(a) and argued that there was no substantial evidence to support the finding.

Facts

Glenn Stonerock, an employee of Martin Painting and Coating Company, was accidentally electrocuted on October 23, 1975.  Stonerock and a co-employee were painting a tower and water tank at the Jeffrey Mining Machinery Company’s plant in Columbus, Ohio, when Stonerock came into contact with high voltage electrical lines. An OSHA compliance investigator cited the appellant for violating the OSHA electrical power safety standard.  The appellant was fined $550.00.  The appellant fought the citation and penalty stating that Stonerock’s co-employee was made aware of the dangers and that they complied with all standard safety and precautions.  The field supervisor of the Jeffrey Mining Machinery Company stated that even though he personally informed Stonerock of the potential danger, there were provisions which the appellant had failed to meet: providing Stonerock a cherry-picker instead of a boatswain chair for painting near electrical lines, and informing Stonerock personally exactly when the electrical lines would be shut off so he could adjust his painting schedule. The field supervisor had only warned Stonerock’s co-employee to ask before painting the northeastern leg of the tower.

Legal Provisions

The appellant Martin Painting and Coating Company had been charged with committing a serious violation of the electrical power safety regulations 29 C.F.R. § 1926.400(c) (1), issued according to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq. 

Issue(s):  Did Martin Painting and Coating Company take adequate precautions to ensure Stonerock’s safety and prevent his death?

Decision: The court decided that Martin Painting and Coating Company did not take adequate precautions to ensure Stonerock’s safety and prevent his death.

Rule of the Case:  The ruling was in favor of the appellee.

Reasons

Under 29 U.S.C. § 660(a), the findings of OSHA are conclusive “if supported by substantial evidence.” This Court has interpreted the term “substantial evidence” to mean, in the context of OSHA violations, “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”  Dunlop v. Rockwell International, 540 F.2d 1283, 1287 (6th Cir. 1976), quoting Jones v. Priebe, 489 F.2d 709, 710 (6th Cir. 1973) states the evidence “must be enough to warrant denial of a motion for a directed verdict in a civil case tried to a jury.” Id.  The case of Cf. Brennan v. Butler Lime and Cement Company, 520 F.2d 1011, 1017-19 (7th Cir. 1975) proved that negligence of employee does not relieve employer of responsibility for serious violation, where violation was foreseeable due to inadequacy of safety precautions.

Concurring & Dissenting Opinions

Though the appellant states that the informed all of their employees of any possible hazard and made them take classes, they are still responsible for their employees’ safety.  If the company would have instructed Stonerock to wait until the lines were shut off, his life may have been spared.