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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 408.1011 (2026)

Duties of employer.

✓ 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


408.1011 Duties of employer.

Sec. 11.

    An employer shall:

    (a) Furnish to each employee, employment and a place of employment that is free from recognized hazards that are causing, or are likely to cause, death or serious physical harm to the employee.

    (b) Comply with this act and with the rules and standards promulgated and the orders issued pursuant to this act.

    (c) Post notices and use other appropriate means to keep his or her employees informed of their protections and obligations under this act, including applicable rules and standards.

    (d) Provide personal protective equipment at the employer's expense when it is specifically required to be provided at the employer's expense in a rule or a standard promulgated under this act. When promulgating a rule or a standard concerning personal protective equipment, the director shall use at least the following criteria in determining who should pay for the equipment:

    (i) Whether the equipment is transferable between employees.

    (ii) Whether the equipment is maintained by the employer.

    (iii) Whether the equipment generally remains at the work site after the work activity has been completed.

    (iv) The amount of personal use involved with the equipment.

History: 1974, Act 154, Eff. Jan. 1, 1975 ;-- Am. 1979, Act 149, Eff. Mar. 27, 1980 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 51, Imd. Eff. Mar. 25, 1980 ;-- Am. 1986, Act 80, Eff. May 25, 1986 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 416, Eff. Dec. 27, 2012

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case: Sedgwick Ins. v. F.A.B.E. Custom Downstream Sys., Inc., 47 F. Supp. 3d 536 (E.D. Mich. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sedgwick Ins. v. F.A.B.E. Custom Downstream Sys., Inc., 47 F. Supp. 3d 536 (E.D. Mich. 2014). · cites it 4× “” (Report and Recommendation, at 11) (citing Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act (“MIOSHA”), Mich Comp. Laws § 408.1011(a) and Villar v.”
People v. Lanzo Constr. Co., 726 N.W.2d 746 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “” MCL 408.1011(a). MCL 408.1035(5) provides a criminal penalty for willful violations of MIOSHA: An employer who willfully violates this act, an order issued pursuant to this act, or a rule or standard promulgated under this act which causes the death of an employee is guilty of…”
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Ralph Wilson Plastics Co., 509 N.W.2d 520 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “This is particularly true where, as here, NSC, as the employer, had an obligation under MIOSHA, as it existed before May 25, 1986, to "[m]ake available to employees in a conspicuous location in the area where a chemical substance or mixture which is used in a quantity capable of…”
Panich v. Iron Wood Prods. Corp., 445 N.W.2d 795 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “[4] MCL 408.1011 and 408.1061; MSA 17.50(11) and 17.”
Ghrist v. Chrysler Corp., 547 N.W.2d 272 (Mich. 1996). · cites it 4× “§ 408.1011; M.S.A. § 17.50(11). [17] 217 N.”
Ohlsen v. Dst Indus., Inc, 314 N.W.2d 699 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “MCL 408.1011(a); MSA 17.50(ll)(a). The trial judge, in his opinion granting the summary judgment motion for failure to state a claim, stated: "Nowhere in the statute, in its legislative history, nor in its statutory declaration of purpose and policy is there any provision that a…”
Shipman v. Fontaine Truck Equip. Co., 459 N.W.2d 30 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). “In this case, Fontaine’s product was a fully integrated product rather than a component part required to be integrated into a larger system of the user.”
Bullock v. Gulf & W. Mfg., 340 N.W.2d 294 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “In light of the fact that plaintiffs employer, DSP (the owner of the factory), was under the same statutory obligation to establish and maintain safe *322 working conditions for plaintiff, MCL 408.1011; MSA 17.50(11), we conclude that it was not fore: seeable to defendant that…”
Villar v. E W Bliss Co., 350 N.W.2d 920 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). “1 That sec *120 tion was subsequently repealed by 1974 PA 154 , which, however, enacted MCL 408.1011; MSA 17.50(11), which contains an equivalent provision.”
Wessels v. EW Bliss Co, Inc, 447 N.W.2d 758 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “Our reading of Villar suggests that three criteria must be satisfied before its holding may be successfully invoked: (1) the press must be inoperable until it is integrated by the user (employer of the injured plaintiff) into its manufacturing processes, (2) the user, as the…”
Butler v. Ramco-Gershenson, Inc, 542 N.W.2d 912 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “In reliance on these allegations, defendants argued in their brief that summary disposition should be granted pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) because they owed no duty to plaintiff to provide him with a safe workplace where such duty rested on wwc as plaintiffs employer pursuant to…”
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Bureau of Saf. & Reg., 349 N.W.2d 157 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). “MCL 408.1011(l)(b); MSA 17.50(H)(1)(b). When an employer does not comply and the department issues a citation for that failure to comply, the employer may seek a review of that citation with the department.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 408.1011(1)(c)(v) — 1 case
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Ralph Wilson Plastics Co., 509 N.W.2d 520 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993). “This is particularly true where, as here, NSC, as the employer, had an obligation under MIOSHA, as it existed before May 25, 1986, to "[m]ake available to employees in a conspicuous location in the area where a chemical substance or mixture which is used in a quantity capable of…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 408.1011(a) — 8 cases
Sedgwick Ins. v. F.A.B.E. Custom Downstream Sys., Inc., 47 F. Supp. 3d 536 (E.D. Mich. 2014). “” (Report and Recommendation, at 11) (citing Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act (“MIOSHA”), Mich Comp. Laws § 408.1011(a) and Villar v.”
People v. Lanzo Constr. Co., 726 N.W.2d 746 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “” MCL 408.1011(a). MCL 408.1035(5) provides a criminal penalty for willful violations of MIOSHA: An employer who willfully violates this act, an order issued pursuant to this act, or a rule or standard promulgated under this act which causes the death of an employee is guilty of…”
Ohlsen v. Dst Indus., Inc, 314 N.W.2d 699 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “MCL 408.1011(a); MSA 17.50(ll)(a). The trial judge, in his opinion granting the summary judgment motion for failure to state a claim, stated: "Nowhere in the statute, in its legislative history, nor in its statutory declaration of purpose and policy is there any provision that a…”
Ghrist v. Chrysler Corp., 547 N.W.2d 272 (Mich. 1996). “§ 408.1011; M.S.A. § 17.50(11). [17] 217 N.”
People v. Gen. Dynamics Land Sys., Inc, 438 N.W.2d 359 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 408.1011(c) — 1 case
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Ralph Wilson Plastics Co., 509 N.W.2d 520 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993). “This is particularly true where, as here, NSC, as the employer, had an obligation under MIOSHA, as it existed before May 25, 1986, to "[m]ake available to employees in a conspicuous location in the area where a chemical substance or mixture which is used in a quantity capable of…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 408.1011(l)(b) — 1 case
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Bureau of Saf. & Reg., 349 N.W.2d 157 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). “MCL 408.1011(l)(b); MSA 17.50(H)(1)(b). When an employer does not comply and the department issues a citation for that failure to comply, the employer may seek a review of that citation with the department.”
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.