Occupational Safety and Health
Civil penalty for violations
- classification of violations
- payment and disposition of penalty moneys
See also annotations under ORS 654.050 in permanent edition.
Notes of Decisions
A jury trial is not required by Art. I, §17 of the Oregon Constitution for the imposition of a penalty imposed under this section. Accident Prevention Div. v. No. Am. Contractors, Inc., 22 Or App 614, 540 P2d 391 (1975)
Where monetary penalties assessed for violations under this section were within statutory limits, court was without power to redetermine assessment. Accident Prevention Division v. Van Eyk, 31 Or App 1355, 572 P2d 671 (1977), Sup Ct review denied
Under rules adopted by Accident Prevention Division under this section, hearings referee has no authority to impose penalties less than those required by rules. Accident Prevention Div. v. Asana, 110 Or App 103, 821 P2d 432 (1991)
Assessment of employer's exercise of reasonable diligence requires consideration of (1) time of violation; (2) employer's proximity to and opportunity to witness violation; (3) foreseeability of violation; (4) general circumstances of, and level of danger inherent in, work; (5) potential need for continuous supervision of employee; (6) nature and extent of employer's other duties; (7) employee's training and experience; and (8) extent and efficacy of employer's safety programs. Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Division v. CBI Services, Inc., 254 Or App 466, 295 P3d 660 (2013), aff'd on other grounds, 356 Or 577, 341 P3d 701 (2014)
Under this section, whether employer "did not, and could not with the exercise of reasonable diligence, know of the presence of the violation" refers to what employer was capable of knowing or discovering under circumstances. Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Division v. CBI Services, Inc., 356 Or 577, 341 P3d 701 (2014)
Whether employer exercised "reasonable diligence" as used in phrase "could not with the exercise of reasonable diligence, know of the presence of the violation" is determination for agency to evaluate with specific factors. Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Division v. CBI Services, Inc., 356 Or 577, 341 P3d 701 (2014)
Law Review Citations
26 WLR 393 (1990)
Notes of Decisions
Safety codes under Oregon Safe Employment Act apply to all work places and not only to work places covered by Employer Liability Law. Miller v. Ga.-Pacific, 294 Or 750, 662 P2d 718 (1983)
Violation of Workers' Compensation Department rule resulting in injury to nonemploye is not negligence per se, but it does not follow that rule is irrelevant to determination of due care in case grounded in common law negligence. Shahtout v. Emco Garbage Co., 298 Or 598, 695 P2d 897 (1985)
Where right of action for injuries exists resulting from violation of Oregon Safe Employment Act, right belongs only to employee whom Act directly protects not "indirect" employee. Flores v. Metro Machinery Rigging, Inc., 99 Or App 636, 783 P2d 1024 (1989), Sup Ct review denied
Referee did not err in finding employer in violation of rule requiring workers to be "properly...supervised" where employee killed in accident was skilled and experienced supervisor working with two other supervisors during strike, but none of the three was in charge. Accident Prevention Div. v. Roseburg Forest Prod., 106 Or App 69, 806 P2d 172 (1991)
Whether identity of complainant falsely reporting violation is subject to disclosure under Oregon public records law ([former] ORS 192.410 et seq.) depends on complainant's good or bad faith in making complaint. Hood Technology Corp. v. Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Division, 168 Or App 293, 7 P3d 564 (2000)
Notes of Decisions
An administrative regulation requires Accident Prevention Division to prove reasonableness of civil penalty imposed for violation of Oregon State Employment Act. Accident Prevention Div. v. Sunrise Seed, 26 Or App 879, 554 P2d 550 (1976)
Accident Prevention Division rule allowing citation for "repeat violation" of division's safety standards while prior citation is contested and not yet upheld by final order is within agency's authority to promulgate rules consistent with purpose of Act to assure as far as possible safe and healthful working conditions. Accident Prevention Div. v. Hoffman Construction, 64 Or App 73, 667 P2d 543 (1983)
Atty. Gen. Opinions
Inapplicability of occupational safety and health laws to inmates in prison work programs, (1996) Vol 48, p 134