general duty clause in Maryland

2002Com’n, 489 F.2d 1257, 1266 (D.C.Cir.1973), the court, dealing with an alleged violation under the general duty clause, held *472 that the duty “was to be an achievable one” and that a “hazard consisting of conduct by employees” could not be totally eliminated.

2002To establish a violation of the general duty clause, the court held, proof of an actual occurrence of hazardous conduct was not enough — “[t]he record must additionally indicate that demonstrably feasible measures would have materially reduced the likelihood that such misconduct would have occurred.” Id. at 1267 .

2019See Comm'r of Labor and Industry v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. , 344 Md. 17 , 684 A.2d 845 (1996) ; Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Comm'r of Labor and Industry , 339 Md. 323 , 662 A.2d 256 (1995).

2019See Comm'r of Labor and Industry v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. , 344 Md. 17 , 684 A.2d 845 (1996) ; Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Comm'r of Labor and Industry , 339 Md. 323 , 662 A.2d 256 (1995).

2011In Bethlehem Steel v. Comm. of Labor, 339 Md. 323 , 662 A.2d 256 (1995) we summarized MOSHA and OSHA as follows: The general duty clause of OSHA, 29 U.S.C. § 654 (a)(1), requires that each employer "shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.” The general duty clause of MOSHA, LE § 5-104(a), requires that each employer "shall provide each employee of the employer with employment and a place of employment that is: (1) safe and healthful;

2011In Bethlehem Steel v. Comm. of Labor, 339 Md. 323 , 662 A.2d 256 (1995) we summarized MOSHA and OSHA as follows: The general duty clause of OSHA, 29 U.S.C. § 654 (a)(1), requires that each employer "shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.” The general duty clause of MOSHA, LE § 5-104(a), requires that each employer "shall provide each employee of the employer with employment and a place of employment that is: (1) safe and healthful;

2019The Majority also relies on F & H Coatings, LLC v. Acosta , for the proposition that a general duty clause violation existed, because "[a]t its most basic, the condition involved elevating an incredibly heavy object, placing it on a set of racks, [and] allowing work to be performed on it without securing it against unexpected movement." 900 F.3d 1214 , 1225 (2018).

2019The Majority also relies on F & H Coatings, LLC v. Acosta, for the proposition that a general duty clause violation existed, because “[a]t its most basic, the condition involved elevating an incredibly heavy object, placing it on a set of racks, [and] allowing work to be performed on it without securing it against unexpected movement.” 900 F.3d 1214, 1225 (2018).

2011In Bethlehem Steel v. Comm. of Labor, 339 Md. 323 , 662 A.2d 256 (1995) we summarized MOSHA and OSHA as follows: The general duty clause of OSHA, 29 U.S.C. § 654 (a)(1), requires that each employer "shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.” The general duty clause of MOSHA, LE § 5-104(a), requires that each employer "shall provide each employee of the employer with employment and a place of employment that is: (1) safe and healthful;

2011In Bethlehem Steel v. Comm. of Labor, 339 Md. 323 , 662 A.2d 256 (1995) we summarized MOSHA and OSHA as follows: The general duty clause of OSHA, 29 U.S.C. § 654 (a)(1), requires that each employer "shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.” The general duty clause of MOSHA, LE § 5-104(a), requires that each employer "shall provide each employee of the employer with employment and a place of employment that is: (1) safe and healthful;

1996To conclude otherwise would be in direct conflict with the intent of the general duty clause contained in Md.Code (1974, 1991 Repl.Vol.) Title 5, Subtitle 1, § 5-104(a) of the Labor and Employment Article, [7] *849 which requires that `each employer shall provide each employee of the employer with employment and a place of employment that are: (1) safe and healthful[.]'" Commissioner of Labor & Indus. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 106 Md.App. 243, 255 , 664 A.2d 411, 417 (1995).

1996To conclude otherwise would be in direct conflict with the intent of the general duty clause contained in Md.Code (1974, 1991 Repl.Vol.) Title 5, Subtitle 1, § 5-104(a) of the Labor and Employment Article, [7] *849 which requires that `each employer shall provide each employee of the employer with employment and a place of employment that are: (1) safe and healthful[.]'" Commissioner of Labor & Indus. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 106 Md.App. 243, 255 , 664 A.2d 411, 417 (1995).

1995Co. v. OSHRC, 489 F.2d 1257, 1268 (D.C.Cir.1973); see also Faultless Div., Bliss & Laughlin Indus., Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, 674 F.2d 1177, 1189 (7th Cir.1982); Ace Sheeting & Repair Co. v. OSHRC, 555 F.2d 439, 441 (5th Cir.1977); United Steelworkers of Am.

1995Co. v. OSHRC, 489 F.2d 1257, 1268 (D.C.Cir.1973); see also Faultless Div., Bliss & Laughlin Indus., Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, 674 F.2d 1177, 1189 (7th Cir.1982); Ace Sheeting & Repair Co. v. OSHRC, 555 F.2d 439, 441 (5th Cir.1977); United Steelworkers of Am.

1984And, as to the general duty clause of OSHA, see Donovan v. Royal Logging Co., 645 F.2d 822, 831 (9th Cir.1981) (“[A] reasonably prudent employer in the industry would have known that the proposed method of abatement was required under the job conditions where the citation was issued.”); General Dynamics Corp. v. OSHRC, 599 F.2d 453 , 464 (1st Cir.1979).

1984Accord Donovan v. Royal Logging Co., supra, 645 F.2d at 829 ; St.

1984But the test of a reasonable person familiar with the practices of the industry cannot be limited to the custom and practice itself. “[T]he inquiry must be broad enough to prevent an industry, which fails to take sufficient precautionary measures against hazardous conditions, from subverting the underlying purposes of [OSHA].” Bristol Steel & Iron Works, supra, 601 F.2d at 723.

1983In B & B Insulation, Inc. v. OSHRC, 583 F.2d 1364 (5th Cir. 1978), the United States Court of Appeals reversed the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission’s finding that an employer had violated the construction industry equivalent of the general duty clause where it stated: [T]he employer whose activity is not yet addressed by a specific regulation and whose conduct conforms to the common practice of those similarly situated in his industry should generally not bear an extra burden.

1983In B & B Insulation, Inc. v. OSHRC, 583 F.2d 1364 (5th Cir. 1978), the United States Court of Appeals reversed the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission’s finding that an employer had violated the construction industry equivalent of the general duty clause where it stated: [T]he employer whose activity is not yet addressed by a specific regulation and whose conduct conforms to the common practice of those similarly situated in his industry should generally not bear an extra burden.