Ark. Code Ann. § 11-2-117 (2020)
Safe place of employment — Duties of employer and director
- Every employer shall furnish employment that is safe for the employees therein and shall furnish and use safety devices and safeguards. The employer shall adopt and use methods and processes reasonably adequate to render such an employment and place of employment safe and shall do every other thing reasonably necessary to protect the life, health, safety, and welfare of the employees.
- Every employer and every owner of a place of employment, place of public assembly, or public building, now or hereafter constructed, shall construct, repair, and maintain it so as to render it safe.
- If the Director of the Division of Labor or his or her authorized representative finds that any machine, tool, or equipment, or any part thereof, is in a dangerous condition, is not properly guarded, or is dangerously placed, he or she shall attach to the machine, tool, or equipment a notice warning all persons against its use and setting out in complete detail the conditions that render the machine, tool, or equipment unfit for service. The machine, tool, or equipment shall not be used until it is made safe, the required safeguards or safety appliances or devices as set forth in the certificate attached thereto have been fully corrected, and notice of the correction is sent to the Division of Labor by registered mail, accompanied by a certificate from a competent mechanic certifying correction of the defects.
History. Acts 1937, No. 161, § 9; Pope's Dig., § 8505; A.S.A. 1947, § 81-108; Acts 2019, No. 910, § 5294.
Amendments. The 2019 amendment, in (c), substituted “Director of the Division of Labor” for “Director of the Department of Labor” in the first sentence, and substituted “Division of Labor” for “Department of Labor” in the second sentence.
Cross References. Inspection of working place, § 11-5-107.
Research References
ALR.
Technological Feasibility as Factor Affecting Validity of, or Obligation of Compliance with, Standards Established Under Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. §§ 651 et seq.). 72 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 461.
Judicial Deference to Secretary of Labor's Interpretations of Occupational Safety and Health Act or Regulations Promulgated Thereunder, 23 A.L.R. Fed. 3d Art. 1 (2017).
Case Notes
Applicability.
A violation of § 11-2-117 did not relieve employee of silica mine from assumption of risk of contracting occupational disease since this subchapter does not apply to mines and mining and the production of silica is a mining operation. Barksdale v. Silica Prods. Co., 200 Ark. 32, 137 S.W.2d 901 (1940).
By its terms this subchapter applies only to a person having five or more employees, therefore, where there was no proof that defendant had that minimum number of employees, instruction that defendant had control of job and it was his duty to furnish plaintiff with a safe place to work was properly refused. Richison v. Boatright, 238 Ark. 579, 383 S.W.2d 287 (1964).
This section is directed to employers and employees in relation to working conditions, safety, and enforcement of the labor laws in connection therewith and does not apply to manufacturers in the design of products to be sold in the open market. Chesser v. King, 244 Ark. 1211, 428 S.W.2d 633 (1968), overruled, Suneson v. Holloway Constr. Co., 337 Ark. 571, 992 S.W.2d 79 (1999).
Where it was found that a general contractor hired an independent electrical contractor, who was the actual employer of the lineman injured on the job, the contractor and the lineman did not have an employer-employee relationship and this section did not apply. Stoltze v. Arkansas Valley Elec. Coop. Corp., 354 Ark. 601, 127 S.W.3d 466 (2003).
Assumption of Risk.
This section, together with § 11-8-105, does not bar the defense of assumption of risk, in the absence of evidence of negligence on the part of an employer. Buffington v. Owosso Mfg. Co., 105 F.2d 692 (8th Cir. 1939).
Duty.
It may be that possession of the place of employment by general contractor was sufficient to impose upon it a duty to make the place safe for employment of employee of the subcontractor; and, if so, the duty imposed on the prime contractor was beyond that imposed by the common law, and he could not escape liability by showing that he exercised ordinary care or even extraordinary care to make the place of employment safe. Carter v. Fraser Constr. Co., 219 F. Supp. 650 (W.D. Ark. 1963).
Where neither the landlord, who had contracted with a general contractor, nor a proposed tenant had control or custody of employment, place of employment, or employee of subcontractor, this section which imposes a duty upon certain persons to make a place safe for employment did not apply to them. Carter v. Fraser Constr. Co., 219 F. Supp. 650 (W.D. Ark. 1963).
This section does not require one employer to provide a safe place of employment for the employees of another. Horn v. Shirley, 246 Ark. 1134, 441 S.W.2d 468 (1969).
Effect on Workers' Compensation.
Proof of a violation of this section is sufficient to support a fifteen percent penalty pursuant to § 11-9-503, even though this section is not part of the workers' compensation law. Georgia Pac. Corp. v. Ray, 273 Ark. 343, 619 S.W.2d 648 (1981).
Evidence.
—No Violation Shown.
There was no safety violation where there was evidence that employees were taught during training safety regulations written by defendant; safety rules were posted near work areas; and there were regular safety meetings with employees to reinforce awareness of safety in the work place and what could be done to avoid accidents. Reed v. Reynolds Metals, 33 Ark. App. 89, 801 S.W.2d 661 (1991).
—Violation Shown.
Injured employee had not failed to show a safety violation when he failed to show that the employer knew that the particular stair on which employee was injured would break; where the facts showed that the stair which broke was corroded, that the area was generally corroded and deteriorated, that the employer was aware of the danger, and that the employer neither made repairs nor set the area off limits to employees, the law requires no greater showing to establish a safety violation. Bussell v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 48 Ark. App. 131, 891 S.W.2d 75 (1995).
Landlords.
Without an assumption of responsibility for repairs, there is no common-law duty under which to impose liability on landlords to provide a safe workplace for the employees of their tenant, and none was created by this section. Steward v. McDonald, 330 Ark. 837, 958 S.W.2d 297 (1997).
Legislative Intent.
The General Assembly did not intend for the phrase “every owner of a place of employment” to expand or extend a landlord's duty to provide a safe place to work for his tenant's employees. Steward v. McDonald, 330 Ark. 837, 958 S.W.2d 297 (1997).
Cited: Estes v. Cedar Chems., 54 Ark. App. 311, 925 S.W.2d 444 (1996).