Risk Assessment in Washington D.C.: Securing No-Charge

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This case underscores the importance of thorough, proactive risk assessment practices for businesses in Washington D.C. Key lessons include:

• Regular Updates and Maintenance: Consistently update risk assessments and SOPs to address new and emerging risks.
• Comprehensive Documentation: Maintain detailed records of safety training, risk assessments, and corrective actions.
• Employee Training: Ensure that all employees are adequately trained and follow established safety protocols.
• Engagement of Legal Counsel: Prompt legal intervention, combined with technical documentation, can prevent unwarranted criminal charges.

By adhering to these best practices, businesses can significantly reduce their risk of legal exposure following workplace accidents.