MICHIGAN OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT
Act 154 of 1974
408.1001 Short title.
Sec. 1.
This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Michigan occupational safety and health act".
History: 1974, Act 154, Eff. Jan. 1, 1975
Compiler's Notes:
For transfer of powers and duties of the division of occupational health in the bureau of environmental and occupational health, with the exception of dry cleaning unit, from the department of public health to the director of the department of labor, see E.R.O. No. 1996-1, compiled at MCL 330.3101 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
For transfer of powers and duties relating to the promulgation of rules by the general industry safety standards commission, the construction safety standards commission, the occupational health standards commission, and the board of health and safety compliance and appeals from the department of labor to the director of the department of consumer and industry services, see E.R.O. No. 1996-2, compiled at MCL 445.2001 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
For the transfer of the Michigan occupational safety and health administration from the department of licensing and regulatory affairs to the department of labor and economic opportunity and the powers and duties of the director of the department of licensing and regulatory affairs to the director of the department of labor and economic opportunity, see E.R.O. No. 2019-3, compiled at MCL 125.1998.
Notes of Decisions
Lash v. City of Traverse City, 735 N.W.2d 628 (Mich. 2007).
· cites it 2× “2d 619 (1984) (The Court refused to permit a tort remedy for violations of the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act, MCL 408.1001 et seq., despite acknowledging that the statutory remedy was inadequate because it resulted "in the undercompensation of many seriously…”
Schwartz v. Michigan Sugar Co., 308 N.W.2d 459 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 4× “Second, plaintiff claims that his discharge was in retaliation for his effective performance as company safety director and that defendant thereby violated the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act (MIOSHA), MCL 408.1001 et seq.; MSA 17.50(1) et seq.”
Hottmann v. Hottmann, 572 N.W.2d 259 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 4× “Plaintiff further alleged that defendant negligently allowed him to work on the roof without following the safety precautions required by the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act (MIOSHA), M.”
People v. Waterstone, 296 Mich. App. 121 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
“” 52 Other criminal statutes, that define the term “wilful,” highlight this distinction: “Wilful”, for the purpose of criminal prosecutions, means the intent to do an act knowingly and purposely by an individual who, having a free will and choice, either intentionally disregards…”
Panich v. Iron Wood Prods. Corp., 445 N.W.2d 795 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “, and the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act, MCL 408.1001 et seq., MSA 17.50(1) et seq.”
Kennedy v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 737 N.W.2d 179 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“Finally, plaintiff argues that even if the crushed grapes and grape residue were open and obvious, defendants breached a separate and distinct duly imposed by the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act (MIOSHA), MCL 408.”
Beals v. Walker, 296 N.W.2d 828 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 2× “This phrase is defined in the statute as "a factory, plant, establishment, construction site, or other similar area, workplace or environment where an employee is permitted to work".”
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Ralph Wilson Plastics Co., 509 N.W.2d 520 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “Shortly after NSC began these purchases, PDI provided NSC with the relevant material safety data sheets (MSDS) required by the Occupational Safety and Health Act (MIOSHA), MCL 408.1001 et seq.; MSA 17.50(1) et seq.”
Ghaffari v. Turner Constr. Co., 708 N.W.2d 448 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
“First, we found that neither the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act (MIOSHA), MCL 408.1001 et seq., nor the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), 29 USC 651 et seq.”
Frens Orchards, Inc v. Dayton Twp. Bd., 654 N.W.2d 346 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “, the miosha, MCL 408.1001 et seq., and administrative rules promulgated pursuant to their authority is so extensive that any local control has been preempted.”
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.