1. Risk Assessment in Washington D.C. | Case Background and Initial Charges
A Washington D.C. construction materials manufacturer was charged after a newly hired employee suffered a disabling arm injury during a nozzle replacement task on a factory air cylinder machine.
The injury occurred less than a month after the worker’s employment began.
The investigation revolved around whether the company’s risk assessment had adequately addressed the hazard presented by the machinery.
The company immediately reported the accident, provided medical assistance, and offered job reassignment.
However, after failing to settle a demand for excessive compensation, the injured worker filed criminal charges against the company, which triggered an official OSH investigation.
The prosecutor's initial stance suggested that the company’s risk assessment was inadequate due to missing safety devices on the machinery.
D.C. OSH Allegations of Compliance Failure
The investigation supervisor’s initial focus was on the air cylinder machine, particularly its lack of an emergency stop device.
The supervisor argued that this omission violated the OSH Act, raising concerns that the company’s risk assessment was flawed.
This positioned the corporate representative as the person responsible for ensuring that all safety regulations were followed, making the company’s risk assessment a focal point of the defense.
In Washington D.C., corporate officers bear responsibility for safety compliance, and any failure to include mandated safety features can result in penalties.
The prosecution’s argument centered on the company’s failure to include an emergency stop device in its risk assessment, which they claimed was a clear violation.
The defense’s primary goal was to demonstrate that the safety device was not legally required, thus validating the company’s existing risk assessment for the machine. This required a thorough review of the technical safety regulations.
2. Risk Assessment in Washington D.C. | Challenging the Regulatory Basis of the Charges
The defense strategy was built on the assertion that the prosecution’s interpretation of the safety standards was incorrect.
The defense aimed to show that the company’s machinery was not subject to the emergency stop device requirement as initially claimed by the government.
Non-Mandatory Status of Emergency Stop Devices
The investigator classified the air cylinder machine as "power-operated" equipment, which led to the assumption that it required an emergency stop device.
However, the defense team conducted a detailed analysis of the relevant OSH standards and industry guidelines.
The team demonstrated that the machine was not like other power-operated machines, such as presses or shears, which explicitly required emergency stop devices.
The machine in question was lever-activated, and upon releasing the lever, it immediately stopped.
This design inherently acted as a safety mechanism, negating the need for an external emergency stop device.
Proving Adequacy of Existing Risk Assessment Documentation
To support the defense, the legal team presented the company’s comprehensive safety records, including risk assessment reports, safety training documentation, and standard operating procedures(SOPs).
As emphasized by OSHA resources, a proper risk assessment should identify, evaluate, and mitigate hazards.
The defense showed that the company had met these requirements by regularly updating SOPs, conducting risk assessments, and providing extensive safety training.
3. Risk Assessment in Washington D.C. | Evidence of Employee Procedural Breach
The defense further reinforced its case by demonstrating that the employee’s actions directly caused the injury, rather than a failure in the company’s safety procedures or risk assessment.
This shifted the blame from the company to the employee’s disregard for established protocols.
Reconstructing the Accident and Proving Negligence
The defense team visited the factory and conducted a detailed analysis of the machinery and the incident.
The company’s SOPs clearly outlined that the nozzle replacement task should be supervised, and that the assistant should wait for the supervisor to operate the lever after ensuring a safe position.
The re-enactment, supported by witness statements, confirmed that the injured worker had deviated from this procedure, acting without supervisor approval and putting themselves in a dangerous position.
This established that the injury was caused by the employee’s actions, not the company’s safety protocols.
Risk Assessment and the Corporate Duty of Care
Under the OSH Act, employers must take reasonable steps to ensure workplace safety, but they are not required to eliminate all potential risks, particularly when the risk arises from employee negligence.
The defense argued that the company had fulfilled its duty of care by implementing and adhering to proper risk assessments and SOPs.
This proved that the injury was not the result of any failure on the company’s part to comply with the OSH Act.
4. Risk Assessment in Washington D.C. | Favorable Outcome and Legal Implications
Following the submission of expert testimony, legal arguments, and supporting evidence, the investigation officer concluded that the company was not criminally liable.
This outcome highlighted the value of a well-executed defense strategy based on accurate risk assessment documentation.
The investigation officer agreed with the defense team’s arguments, confirming:
- The machine did not require an emergency stop device under existing regulations, supporting the company’s risk assessment.
- There was no sufficient evidence to prove the company had neglected its safety obligations.
- Employee negligence was likely the direct cause of the injury.
As a result, the company and its representative received a No-Charge(Insufficient Evidence) decision, preventing the case from advancing to criminal court and allowing the company to resume normal operations.
Key Takeaways for Corporate Risk Assessment Compliance
This case underscores the importance of thorough, proactive risk assessment practices for businesses in Washington D.C. Key lessons include:
By adhering to these best practices, businesses can significantly reduce their risk of legal exposure following workplace accidents.
21 Nov, 2025
