A. The operator shall conduct his operation with due regard to health and safety. No operator shall fail to provide or use such safety devices and safeguards as are reasonably necessary to protect the life, health and safety of his employees.
B. The operator, or some responsible person with authority appointed by him, shall be on duty at all times when employees are working. He shall be responsible for the safe performance of all work under him and for the safety of all employees.
C. The operator shall designate a person or persons to inspect as frequently as may be required by any rules or regulations for unsafe conditions and practices, defective equipment and materials, and where such conditions are found, to take appropriate corrective action.
D. The operator and his supervisory personnel shall enforce safety regulations and issue such orders as may be necessary to safeguard the life, health and safety of employees.
Notes of Decisions
Diaz v. Magma Copper Co., 950 P.2d 1165 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “We see no error in the trial court’s conclusion that Magma did not assume a role independent from that of employer during the rescue attempt but simply assumed obligations it already owed Diaz as his employer. c. Workers’ compensation bad faith In their final claim against…”
In re the Adoption of Holman, 295 P.2d 372 (Ariz. 1956).
“3 attacking the constitutionality of the law is deserving of consideration here because it is based upon the provisions of section 27-304, A.C.A.1939 [A.R.S. § 12-1504], providing for the adoption of a child without the consent of the parents in certain cases.”
Bagley v. State, 595 P.2d 157 (Ariz. 1979).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 27-304. It must be concluded that there was no statutory duty for the mine inspector to act as suggested by appellant.”
Vanoss v. BHP Copper Inc., 418 P.3d 457 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 6× “See A.R.S. § 27-304 ("The [mine] operator shall conduct his operation with due regard to health and safety.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 27-304(A): 1 case
Diaz v. Magma Copper Co., 950 P.2d 1165 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
“We see no error in the trial court’s conclusion that Magma did not assume a role independent from that of employer during the rescue attempt but simply assumed obligations it already owed Diaz as his employer. c. Workers’ compensation bad faith In their final claim against…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 27-304(B): 1 case
Vanoss v. BHP Copper Inc., 418 P.3d 457 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“See A.R.S. § 27-304 ("The [mine] operator shall conduct his operation with due regard to health and safety.”
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.