The following occupations are hazardous within the meaning of this article:
1. The operation of steam railroads, electrical railroads, street railroads by locomotives, engines, trains, motors or cars of any kind propelled by steam, electricity, cable or other mechanical power, including construction, use or repair of machinery, plants, tracks, switches, bridges or roadbeds, upon, over and by which the railroad is operated.
2. All work when making, using or necessitating dangerous proximity to gunpowder, blasting powder, dynamite, compressed air or other explosive.
3. The erection or demolition of a bridge, building or structure in which there is, or in which the plans and specifications require, iron or steel frame work.
4. The operation of elevators, elevating machines, derricks or hoisting apparatus used within or on the outside of a bridge, building or other structure for conveying materials in connection with the erection or demolition of the bridge, building or structure.
5. All work on ladders or scaffolds of any kind elevated twenty feet or more above the ground or floor beneath used in the erection, construction, repair, painting or alteration of a building, bridge, structure or other work in which a ladder or scaffold is used.
6. All work of construction, operation, alteration or repair where wires, cables, switchboards or other apparatus or machinery are in use which are charged with electrical current.
7. All work in the construction, alteration or repair of pole lines for telegraph, telephone or other purposes.
8. All work in or about quarries, open pits, open cuts, mines, ore reduction works and smelters.
9. All work in the construction and repair of tunnels, subways and viaducts.
10. All work in mills, shops, works, yards, plants and factories where steam, electricity or any other mechanical power is used to operate machinery and appliances in and about the premises.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1961–1985 · leading case:
Feffer v. Bowman, 365 P.2d 472 (Ariz. 1961).
Feffer v. Bowman, 365 P.2d 472 (Ariz. 1961).
· cites it 9× “” “A.R.S. § 23-803. Hazardous occupations “The following occupations are hazardous within the meaning of this article : “1.”
Williams v. Magma Copper Co., 425 P.2d 138 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967).
· cites it 2× “There is no question but what the plaintiff was engaged in a hazardous occupation as defined in A.R.S. § 23-803 so as to be covered by the Employers’ Liability Law.”
Mariscal v. Am. Smelting & Refining Co., 548 P.2d 412 (Ariz. 1976).
“A right of action for damages in case of death is given in this language: “When in the course of work in any of the employments or occupations enumerated in § 23-803, personal injury or death by an accident * * * is caused to or suffered by a workman * * * the employer is liable…”
Henderson v. Gardner Mech. Contractors, Inc., 714 P.2d 1293 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 16× “There are several prerequisites for such an action by an employee, but central to the resolution of the issue before the court is the requirement that the employee be engaged in a “hazardous occupation” as defined in A.R.S. § 23-803. This statute provides in pertinent part: The…”
Mariscal v. Am. Smelting & Refining Co., 536 P.2d 1053 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975).
· cites it 2× “The following facts are undisputed: (1) The decedent was working in a hazardous occupation as defined by A.R.S. § 23-803 (Employer’s Liability Law) ; (2) decedent was unmarried and left no “dependents” for.”
Richey v. City of Phoenix, 501 P.2d 49 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972).
· cites it 2× “city employees are hazardous under A.R.S., § 23-803.”, and that they face a “real and present problem created by Employer’s Liability Act, A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-803(1) — 1 case
Henderson v. Gardner Mech. Contractors, Inc., 714 P.2d 1293 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“There are several prerequisites for such an action by an employee, but central to the resolution of the issue before the court is the requirement that the employee be engaged in a “hazardous occupation” as defined in A.R.S. § 23-803. This statute provides in pertinent part: The…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-803(2) — 1 case
Henderson v. Gardner Mech. Contractors, Inc., 714 P.2d 1293 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“There are several prerequisites for such an action by an employee, but central to the resolution of the issue before the court is the requirement that the employee be engaged in a “hazardous occupation” as defined in A.R.S. § 23-803. This statute provides in pertinent part: The…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-803(3) — 1 case
Henderson v. Gardner Mech. Contractors, Inc., 714 P.2d 1293 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“There are several prerequisites for such an action by an employee, but central to the resolution of the issue before the court is the requirement that the employee be engaged in a “hazardous occupation” as defined in A.R.S. § 23-803. This statute provides in pertinent part: The…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-803(4) — 1 case
Henderson v. Gardner Mech. Contractors, Inc., 714 P.2d 1293 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“There are several prerequisites for such an action by an employee, but central to the resolution of the issue before the court is the requirement that the employee be engaged in a “hazardous occupation” as defined in A.R.S. § 23-803. This statute provides in pertinent part: The…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-803(5) — 1 case
Henderson v. Gardner Mech. Contractors, Inc., 714 P.2d 1293 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“There are several prerequisites for such an action by an employee, but central to the resolution of the issue before the court is the requirement that the employee be engaged in a “hazardous occupation” as defined in A.R.S. § 23-803. This statute provides in pertinent part: The…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-803(6) — 1 case
Henderson v. Gardner Mech. Contractors, Inc., 714 P.2d 1293 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“There are several prerequisites for such an action by an employee, but central to the resolution of the issue before the court is the requirement that the employee be engaged in a “hazardous occupation” as defined in A.R.S. § 23-803. This statute provides in pertinent part: The…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-803(9) — 1 case
Henderson v. Gardner Mech. Contractors, Inc., 714 P.2d 1293 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“There are several prerequisites for such an action by an employee, but central to the resolution of the issue before the court is the requirement that the employee be engaged in a “hazardous occupation” as defined in A.R.S. § 23-803. This statute provides in pertinent part: The…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.