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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 408.1009 (2026)

Legislative declaration.

✓ 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


408.1009 Legislative declaration.

Sec. 9.

    The safety, health, and general welfare of employees are primary public concerns. The legislature hereby declares that all employees shall be provided safe and healthful work environments free of recognized hazards.

History: 1974, Act 154, Eff. Jan. 1, 1975

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case: Kennedy v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 737 N.W.2d 179 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kennedy v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 737 N.W.2d 179 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “Plaintiff contends that defendants breached the duty to provide a safe workplace as required by § 9 of MIOSHA, MCL 408.1009, and by administrative regulations enacted under MIOSHA.”
Hottmann v. Hottmann, 572 N.W.2d 259 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “§ 408.1009; M.S.A. § 17.50(9). Nothing in the language of the MIOSHA suggests that it should be applied to homeowners' do-it-yourself projects, nor is it reasonable to expect the average homeowner engaging in such a project to be familiar with and comply with the MIOSHA…”
Barbara Campbell v. Nationstar Mortg., 611 F. App'x 288 (6th Cir. 2015). “2d at 186 (“Plaintiff contends that defendants breached the duty to provide a safe workplace as required by § 9 of MIOSHA, MCL 408.1009, and by administrative regulations enacted under MIOSHA.”
Barker Bros. Constr. v. Bureau of Saf. & Reg., 536 N.W.2d 845 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “[MCL 408.1009; MSA 17.50(9).] The act sets forth the following pertinent definitions: (1) "Employee” means a person permitted to work by an employer.”
Tyrna v. Adamo, Inc, 407 N.W.2d 47 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “” MCL 408.1009; MSA 17.50(9). These goals do not conflict with the goals of the whistle-blowers’ act outlined in Hopkins, and we see no *601 reason, without further legislative direction, that plaintiff should not be able to pursue a cause of action under both statutes.”
Hoeppner v. Dep't of Labor, 304 N.W.2d 841 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “) The purpose of OSHA is set forth in MCL 408.1009; MSA 17.50(9): "The safety, health and general welfare of employees are primary public concerns.”
Bradford v. Gen. Motors Corp., 333 N.W.2d 109 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “Under Fredericks , the dies involved here were not unsafe for their foreseeable uses.”
Balsa U.S.A., Inc. v. Austin, 60 F. Supp. 2d 723 (W.D. Mich. 1999). “§ 408.1009; M.S.A. § 17.50(9). 7 . State law provides that if an affidavit is based upon information supplied to the complainant by an unnamed third person, the affidavit must contain "affirmative allegations from which the magistrate may conclude that the person spoke with…”
Michigan Occupational Saf. & Health Admin v. Yoder Fam. Farm (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “” MCL 408.1009. The act applies “to all 4 The constitutional issues are not presented in this appeal, so we do not address them.”
D Michigan Occupational Saf. & Health Admin v. Yoder Fam. Farm (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “See MCL § 408.1009; MSA § 17.50(9). Nothing in the language of the MIOSHA suggests that it should be applied to homeowners’ do-it-yourself projects, nor is it reasonable to expect the average homeowner engaging in such a project to be familiar with and comply with the MIOSHA…”
Cleveland Stegall v. Resource Tech. Corp. (Mich. 2024). · cites it 2× “Indeed, the three cases that the Suchodolski Court cited when it laid out this second exception show that “acquiescence” of this sort is not what the second exception is supposed to cover. 23 Plaintiff fares no better under the third Suchodolski exception.”
Pamela Lavallis v. Oakland Physicians Med. Ctr. LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “15, and the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act (MIOSHA), MCL 408.1009 and MCL 408.1011. Issues raised for the first time on appeal in a civil case are not ordinarily subject to review.”
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.