Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 408 / Act 154 of 1974
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 408.1002 (2026)

Scope of act; effect on statutory or common law.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MICHIGAN OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT


Act 154 of 1974


408.1002 Scope of act; effect on statutory or common law.

Sec. 2.

    (1) This act shall apply to all places of employment in the state, except in domestic employment and in mines as defined in section 4.

    (2) Nothing in this act shall be construed to supersede or in any manner affect any workers' compensation law, or to enlarge or diminish or affect in any other manner the common law or statutory rights, duties, or liabilities of employers and employees under any law with respect to injuries, diseases, or death of employees arising out of, or in the course of, employment.

History: 1974, Act 154, Eff. Jan. 1, 1975 ;-- Am. 1979, Act 149, Eff. Mar. 27, 1980

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2022 · leading case: Hottmann v. Hottmann, 572 N.W.2d 259 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hottmann v. Hottmann, 572 N.W.2d 259 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “§ 408.1002(1); M.S.A. § 17.50(2)(1). *263 What constitutes an employer and an employee under the MIOSHA is an issue of first impression.”
United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Bureau of Saf. & Reg., 745 N.W.2d 125 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “Respondent argues that, when read together, the plain language of MCL 408.1002, 2 R 408.13308(1), and R 408.”
Ghrist v. Chrysler Corp., 547 N.W.2d 272 (Mich. 1996). · cites it 2× “§ 408.1002(2); M.S.A. § 17.50(2)(2) (emphasis added).”
Sewell v. Bathey Mfg. Co., 303 N.W.2d 876 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “Our starting point for analysis of this final issue is MCL 408.1002; MSA 17.50(2), § 2 of MIOSHA, which provides in relevant part: "(2) Nothing in this act shall be construed to supersede or in any manner affect any workers’ compensation law, or to enlarge or diminish or affect…”
Zalut v. Andersen & Assocs., Inc, 463 N.W.2d 236 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). “MCL 408.1002(2); MSA 17.50(2X2), 29 USC 653(b)(4).”
Hoeppner v. Dep't of Labor, 304 N.W.2d 841 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “) MCL 408.1002; MSA 17.50(2). A review of the legislative history of the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 USC 651 *338 et seq.”
Ghaffari v. Turner Constr. Co., 676 N.W.2d 259 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “MCL 408.1002(2) expressly provides that MIOSHA does not “enlarge or diminish or affect in any other manner the common law or statutory rights, duties, or liabilities of employers and employees under any law with respect to injuries, diseases, or death of employees arising out…”
Ronnie Dancer v. Clark Constr. Co. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “Plaintiff, when asked during his deposition about use of a safety harness for fall protection, stated that the harness was required only when it was necessary to open a door to the platform. An investigator for the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration testified…”
Michigan Occupational Saf. & Health Admin v. Yoder Fam. Farm (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “” MCL 408.1002(1).5 The act defines a “place of employment” as “a factory, plant, establishment, construction site or other similar area, workplace, or environment where an employee is permitted to work.”
Dorchy v. Fifth Third Bank (E.D. Mich. 2021). “24, 2019) (per curiam). Although neither party has directly addressed MIOSHA’s seeming conflict with the WPA in this case, the parties will likely need to address the issue either through motion practice or in instructions to the jury at trial.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 408.1002(1) — 3 cases
Hottmann v. Hottmann, 572 N.W.2d 259 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “§ 408.1002(1); M.S.A. § 17.50(2)(1). *263 What constitutes an employer and an employee under the MIOSHA is an issue of first impression.”
United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Bureau of Saf. & Reg., 745 N.W.2d 125 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “Respondent argues that, when read together, the plain language of MCL 408.1002, 2 R 408.13308(1), and R 408.”
Michigan Occupational Saf. & Health Admin v. Yoder Fam. Farm (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “” MCL 408.1002(1).5 The act defines a “place of employment” as “a factory, plant, establishment, construction site or other similar area, workplace, or environment where an employee is permitted to work.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 408.1002(2) — 6 cases
Hottmann v. Hottmann, 572 N.W.2d 259 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “§ 408.1002(1); M.S.A. § 17.50(2)(1). *263 What constitutes an employer and an employee under the MIOSHA is an issue of first impression.”
Ghrist v. Chrysler Corp., 547 N.W.2d 272 (Mich. 1996). “§ 408.1002(2); M.S.A. § 17.50(2)(2) (emphasis added).”
Zalut v. Andersen & Assocs., Inc, 463 N.W.2d 236 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). “MCL 408.1002(2); MSA 17.50(2X2), 29 USC 653(b)(4).”
Ghaffari v. Turner Constr. Co., 676 N.W.2d 259 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “MCL 408.1002(2) expressly provides that MIOSHA does not “enlarge or diminish or affect in any other manner the common law or statutory rights, duties, or liabilities of employers and employees under any law with respect to injuries, diseases, or death of employees arising out…”
Ronnie Dancer v. Clark Constr. Co. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “Plaintiff, when asked during his deposition about use of a safety harness for fall protection, stated that the harness was required only when it was necessary to open a door to the platform. An investigator for the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration testified…”
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.