292.020. Equipment to be guarded. — The belting, shafting, machines, machinery, gearing and drums in all manufacturing, mechanical and other establishments in this state, when so placed as to be dangerous to persons employed therein or thereabout while engaged in their ordinary duties, shall be safely and securely guarded when possible; if not possible, then notice of its danger shall be conspicuously posted in such establishments. Whenever the director of the inspection section, or his assistant, or deputy, finds that guards have not been installed or notice of danger posted, as required by the provisions of this section, he shall at once, in writing, order the owner or owners, or the person or persons in charge of the machinery, plant, establishment, or place, to make the alterations, additions, or repairs necessary within ten days; and if the said alterations, additions or repairs be not made within ten days from the date of such order, then such failure to make such alterations shall be deemed a violation of sections 292.010 to 292.250, and in addition to the penalties herein prescribed for such violations, the director or his assistant or deputy, shall be and is hereby empowered to, and he shall seal said defective appliance or appliances in such a manner as to render the same inoperative until said order of the director has been complied with.
Notes of Decisions
Pavia v. Smitty's Supermarket, 118 S.W.3d 228 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 18× “As explained more fully below, in its final award the Commission determined Respondent, Patrick Pavia, (“Claimant”) was permanently and totally disabled and awarded him, inter alia, weekly benefits for life, and assessed a 15 percent penalty applicable to all of his benefits…”
Loyd v. Ozark Elec. Coop., Inc., 4 S.W.3d 579 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 36× “4, RSMo 1994, for violation of Section 292.020, RSMo 1994. Following a hearing held October 8, 1997, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that Employer’s failure “to tag the cables in order to apprise employees of the direction of electric current and failure to train…”
Akers v. Warson Garden Apts., 961 S.W.2d 50 (Mo. 1998).
· cites it 4× “Section 292.020 requires machinery to be properly guarded or notice posted “in all manufacturing, mechanical and other establishments in this state_” Section 292.”
Parker v. Springfield Ry. Servs./Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 897 S.W.2d 103 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 4× “1993, for violation of § 292.020, RSMo 1986, requiring guarding of dangerous industrial machinery and equipment, or warning of the dangers when guarding is not possible.”
Duke v. Gulf & W. Mfg. Co., 660 S.W.2d 404 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).
“-217(c) and (d), and Missouri statutes, *416 §§ 292.020 and 292.210, 12 imposing this duty.”
Pavia v. Smitty's Supermarket, 366 S.W.3d 542 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 5× “Accordingly, the ALJ determined that Employer should be assessed a 15% penalty to be added to Claimant’s permanent partial disability award for failure to comply with the safety provisions of section 292.020. Following the ALJ’s decision, Employer filed its application for…”
Wolfmeyer v. Otis Elevator Co., 262 S.W.2d 18 (Mo. 1953).
“The rules promulgated by the Elevator Rules Committee pursuant to Section 1393, supra, when read in connection with Section 1397, supra, are not so broad in their terms as are Sections 6786 and 6806 R.”
Dorris v. Kohl, 337 S.W.3d 107 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 28× “Dor-ris brought an action claiming negligence per se, based on Kohl’s alleged violation of a provision of the “Factory Act,” § 292.020. 1 A jury returned a verdict in favor of Kohl.”
Martin v. Star Cooler Corp., 484 S.W.2d 32 (Mo. Ct. App. 1972).
“The so-called Factory Act, § 292.020, requires that when machines are dangerous to persons employed thereat the machines must be safely guarded whenever possible.”
Murphy v. Bd. of Educ., 455 F. Supp. 390 (E.D. Mo. 1978).
“Although the petition evidences a shotgun approach to pleading, it is apparent that the plaintiffs complain of violations of state law, § 292.020, R.S.Mo.; federal law, the 14th Amendment, 42 U.”
Schnieders v. Stegeman, 344 S.W.2d 645 (Mo. Ct. App. 1961).
· cites it 3× “This action is founded on Section 292.020 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., which provides in part as follows: “The belting, shafting, machines, machinery, gearing and drums in all manufacturing, mechanical and other establishments in this state, when so placed as to be dangerous to persons…”
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.