MICHIGAN OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT
Act 154 of 1974
408.1005 Definitions; E to I.
Sec. 5.
(1) "Employee" means a person permitted to work by an employer.
(2) "Employer" means an individual or organization, including this state or a political subdivision, that employs 1 or more persons. Except as otherwise specifically provided in the franchise agreement, as between a franchisee and franchisor, the franchisee is considered the sole employer of workers for whom the franchisee provides a benefit plan or pays wages.
(3) "Imminent danger" means a condition or practice in a place of employment such that a danger exists that could reasonably be expected to cause death or serious physical harm either immediately or before the imminence of the danger can be eliminated through the enforcement procedures otherwise provided. A container of an unknown and unlabeled chemical or a container of hazardous chemicals that is not labeled or for which a safety data sheet is not available as required by the standard incorporated by reference in section 14a shall be considered an imminent danger after meeting the provisions of section 31.
(4) "Inspection" means the examination or survey of a place of employment to detect the presence of an existing or potential occupational safety or health hazard or to determine compliance with this act or with rules or standards promulgated or orders issued under this act.
(5) "Investigation" means the detailed evaluation or study of working conditions, including equipment, processes, substances, air contaminants, or physical agents with respect to the actual or potential occurrence of occupational accidents, illnesses, or diseases.
History: 1974, Act 154, Eff. Jan. 1, 1975 ;-- Am. 1986, Act 80, Imd. Eff. Apr. 7, 1986 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 447, Imd. Eff. Dec. 27, 2012 ;-- Am. 2016, Act 17, Eff. May 23, 2016
Notes of Decisions
People v. Lanzo Constr. Co., 726 N.W.2d 746 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“” MCL 408.1005(2). There is nothing in this definition that can be construed as either an implicit or ambiguous provision for vicarious liability.”
Hottmann v. Hottmann, 572 N.W.2d 259 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “§ 408.1005(1), (2); M.S.A. § 17.50(5)(1), (2).”
Barker Bros. Constr. v. Bureau of Saf. & Reg., 536 N.W.2d 845 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
“[MCL 408.1005; MSA 17.50(5).] Consequently, in order for a business to come within the scope of the miosha, it must have employees; business size is irrelevant as long as there is at least one employee.”
Dep't of Transp. v. Brown, 396 N.W.2d 529 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
“” 1 MCL 408.1005(2); MSA 17.50(5X2) expressly defines the term "employer” to include the state: "Employer” means an individual or organization, including the state or a political subdivision, which employs 1 or more persons.”
Drenkhahn v. Smith, 303 N.W.2d 176 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
“While Michigan law is not as clear, since MCL 408.1005(2); MSA 17.50(5)(2) provides that an " '[e]mployer’ means an individual or organization, including the state or a political subdivision, which employs 1 or more persons”, a Federal case, Clarkson Construction Co v…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 408.1005(1) — 3 cases
Hottmann v. Hottmann, 572 N.W.2d 259 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
“§ 408.1005(1), (2); M.S.A. § 17.50(5)(1), (2).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 408.1005(2) — 6 cases
People v. Lanzo Constr. Co., 726 N.W.2d 746 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“” MCL 408.1005(2). There is nothing in this definition that can be construed as either an implicit or ambiguous provision for vicarious liability.”
Dep't of Transp. v. Brown, 396 N.W.2d 529 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
“” 1 MCL 408.1005(2); MSA 17.50(5X2) expressly defines the term "employer” to include the state: "Employer” means an individual or organization, including the state or a political subdivision, which employs 1 or more persons.”
Drenkhahn v. Smith, 303 N.W.2d 176 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
“While Michigan law is not as clear, since MCL 408.1005(2); MSA 17.50(5)(2) provides that an " '[e]mployer’ means an individual or organization, including the state or a political subdivision, which employs 1 or more persons”, a Federal case, Clarkson Construction Co v…”
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.