Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.022 (2026)

Duty to comply with safety and health orders, decisions and rules

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      654.022 Duty to comply with safety and health orders, decisions and rules. Every employer, owner, employee and other person shall obey and comply with every requirement of every order, decision, direction, standard, rule or regulation made or prescribed by the Department of Consumer and Business Services in connection with the matters specified in ORS 654.001 to 654.295, 654.412 to 654.423 and 654.750 to 654.780, or in any way relating to or affecting safety and health in employments or places of employment, or to protect the life, safety and health of employees in such employments or places of employment, and shall do everything necessary or proper in order to secure compliance with and observance of every such order, decision, direction, standard, rule or regulation. [Formerly 654.060; 1977 c.804 §35]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Brown v. Boise Cascade Corp., 946 P.2d 324 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brown v. Boise Cascade Corp., 946 P.2d 324 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 3× “780, or in any way relating to or affecting safety and health in employments or places of employment, or to protect the life, safety and health of employees in such employments or places of employment, and shall do everything necessary or proper in order to secure compliance…”
Kilminster v. Day Mgmt. Corp., 919 P.2d 474 (Or. 1996). · cites it 2× “305] without regard to the cost of safety measures, wantonly failed to comply with state safety standards [ see ORS 654.022, 654.310, and OAR 437-3-040(1) ], and deliberately intended to cause worker injury and death.”
Miller v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 662 P.2d 718 (Or. 1983). · cites it 2× “ORS 654.022 states that “[e]very employer, owner, employe and other person shall obey and comply with every requirement of every * * * rule or regulation made or prescribed by the department [the Workers’ Compensation Department] * * * relating to or affecting safety and health…”
Moe v. Beck, 815 P.2d 692 (Or. 1991). · cites it 5× “A worker was injured while driving the truck and brought an action against the defendant, claiming that the defendant had the responsibilities of an “owner” under ORS 654.022 (which is a part of the Oregon Safe Employment Act (OSEA)).”
Anderson v. Evergreen Int'l Airlines, Inc., 886 P.2d 1068 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “015; ORS 654.022. 10 Towards *736 those ends, the OSEA authorizes the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services to set and enforce safety and health standards and procedures to achieve the statute’s objectives.”
Cain v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc., 817 F. Supp. 2d 1251 (D. Or. 2011). “§ 654.022. Cain also alleges numerous failures to provide a safe workplace without specifying a particular statute or regulation that was violated.”
Moe v. Beck, 785 P.2d 781 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “1 Plaintiff assigns as error the summary judgment in favor of Franklin on his negligence claim, in which he alleges that Franklin was negligent for having violated the Oregon Safe Employment Act (SEA), ORS 654.022. 2 That statute, in pertinent part, states: “Every employer,…”
Anderson v. Intel Corp. (D. Or. 2021). · cites it 10× “§ 654.022 In claim four, Anderson alleges Intel violated one or more safety codes and that those violations establish negligence per se under the OSEA, OR.”
Groeneweg v. Jeld-Wen, Inc. (D. Or. 2023). “” ORS 654.022. The statute defines an “owner” as “every person having ownership, control, or custody of any place of employment or of the construction, repair or maintenance of any place of employment.”
Clark v. Intel Corp. (D. Or. 2025). “780” and “fail[ed] to do everything necessary or proper in order to secure compliance with and observance of every such order, decision, direction, standard, rule or regulation, as required by ORS 654.022.” FAC ¶ 25. “To establish negligence per se, plaintiff must demonstrate…”
Aguilar-Padilla v. Boydstun Equip. Mfg., LLC (9th Cir. 2026). “010 ; and another requires employers to comply with “every requirement of every order, decision, direction, standard, rule or regulation made or prescribed” by Oregon’s occupational health and safety agency for health and safety purposes, Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.022 . The agency’s…”
Aguilar-Padilla v. Boydstun Equip. Mfg., LLC (9th Cir. 2026). “010 ; and another requires employers to comply with “every requirement of every order, decision, direction, standard, rule or regulation made or prescribed” by Oregon’s occupational health and safety agency for health and safety purposes, Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.022 . The agency’s…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
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.