Western Oilfields Supply, App. v. Wa State Dept Of Labor & Industries, Res. ( 2017 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION ONE
WESTERN OILFIELDS SUPPLY, ) No. 75615-0-1
d/b/a RAIN FOR RENT, ) -
)
Appellant, )
)
v. )
)
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES, )
) FILED: November 20, 2017
)
Respondent. )
)
VERELLEN, C.J.- A Rain for Rent employee suffered a severe hand injury
when he reached inside a rented pipe fusion machine without deactivating the
machine's hydraulics. The Department of Labor and Industries (Department) cited
Rain for Rent for violating WAC 296-155-040(2), the safe place standard.
The manufacturer's operator manual instructs users to turn off the hydraulics
before reaching inside the unit. Rain for Rent did not provide the operator's manual
with the machine or require the employee to review the manual, and Rain for Rent
itself identified the employee's failure to follow the operator's manual as a cause of
the incident. Because the Department presented substantial evidence that Rain for
Rent failed to provide a workplace free of a hazard, the hazard was recognized, the
hazard caused serious physical harm, and there were feasible means to eliminate or
No. 75615-0-1-2
materially reduce the hazard, the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (Board) did
not err when it upheld the citation.
Additionally, the Board correctly determined Rain for Rent did not prove its
affirmative defense of unpreventable employee misconduct. And Rain for Rent failed
to establish the accident prevention program rule was more specific than the safe
place standard in this setting.
Therefore, we affirm.
FACTS
Rain for Rent is a nationwide company that provides temporary liquid handling
solutions. In July 2013, Rain for Rent was helping build a wastewater treatment plant
in Bellingham. Rain for Rent rented a McElroy Pitbull-900 pipe fusion machine to
assist with the project.
Michael Landdeck, who primarily worked for Rain for Rent as a delivery driver,
was assigned the job of operating the fusion machine. He performed fusion jobs
once every year or year and a half. Landdeck had received prior training on using
pipe fusion machines, but Rain for Rent had not performed a fusion job in nearly two
years. The Pitbull-900 was a new machine that Rain for Rent had not used before.
Landdeck discovered that the operator's manual was not with the machine
"the day the machine showed up"1 Landdeck informed his supervisor that the
operator's manual was missing from the machine's manual box. Rain for Rent
1 Clerk's Papers(CP)at 264-65.
2
No. 75615-0-1-3
neither provided a copy nor required Landdeck to review the manual. Landdeck
continued to use the fusion machine without reviewing the manual.
The fusion machine's carriage had two fixed jaws and two hydraulically
operated jaws. These jaws held the two pipe sections in place. A double-sided
"facer"(circular pipe with three rotating cutter blades) was between the jaws. To
"face"2 the pipe, Landdeck used the machine's hydraulics to move the jaws together,
bringing the two pipe ends into contact with the facer. The rotating cutter blades
shaved plastic ribbons3 from the pipe, squaring off the ends of the pipe. A heat plate
then seals the pipe ends together. Unlike the machines Rain for Rent had used
before, this machine had different hydraulic controls, and the heat plate stayed on
even when the hydraulics were shut off.
The operator's manual for the Pitbull-900 instructed, "Turn the hydraulics off if
it is necessary to enter the unit for maintenance or chip removal. Death or serious
injury will result if the hydraulics are activated while in the unit." The warnings
referred to cleaning "shavings out of pipe ends and from between the jaws."5 And the
manual directed, "Before operating this machine, please read this manual thoroughly,
2 "Facing" is theprocess of shaving down the pipe ends to prepare for fusing
them together. See CP at 255, 575-80.
3 At the hearing, Landdeck called the plastic shavings "ribbons," see CP at
255, but the operator's manual refers to them as "shavings" or "chips," see CP at
576. These terms were used interchangeably at the hearing, see CP at 307("Okay.
What did the operator's manual say about chip or ribbon removal during pipe
facing?").
4 CP at 576.
5 CP at 576(emphasis added).
3
No. 75615-0-1-4
and keep a copy with the machine for future reference. This manual is to be
considered part of your machine."6
On July 16, 2013, Landdeck used this machine to face two sections of 36-inch
high density polyethylene(HDPE) pipe. He noticed plastic shavings catching
between the facer and a metal shroud that covered it. He thought he had to remove
the shavings to continue the job, so he reached into the machine to dislodge them.
Landdeck did not deactivate the machine's hydraulics before attempting to remove
the shavings. He inadvertently leaned against a lever near his knee, which moved
the carriage to the right, pinching his hand between the pipe and the facing plate.
The force crushed his hand.
In the weeks before the incident, Landdeck had completed several job safety
analysis(JSA) worksheets that identified "pinch points" as a hazard and directed the
operator of the machine to watch hand placement. In the handwritten section of the
JSA worksheet, Landdeck wrote,"Keep hands out of pinch points."7 But the JSA
worksheets did not provide instructions on how to remove shavings and did not
mention turning off the hydraulics.
Rain for Rent's employees participate in an initial 40-hour training, monthly
specific safety and health training, and an annual lockout/tagout program. The
company also has written safety rules, policies, and procedures available in hard
copy at each branch. The goal of the written lockout/tagout policy is "that adequate
6 CP at 545(emphasis added).
7 CP at 279.
4
No. 75615-0-1-5
procedures exist to prevent unexpected energization, start up or release of stored
energy."8 After the incident, Landdeck told the Department's compliance officer he
had not seen the lockout/tagout policy or Rain for Rent's pipe cleaning standard
operating procedure. At the hearing, Landdeck testified he was aware of the
lockout/tagout policy and it was possible he reviewed it before the incident, but the
policy did not specifically address this machine. Landdeck testified that he had never
been trained on the issue of ribbons being stuck while facing pipe. At the hearing,
Landdeck also testified it was "possible" Rain for Rent had a policy to shut down
hydraulics. Landdeck had not previously encountered this problem with shavings. At
some unspecified time, Landdeck participated in two two-week training sessions with
the manufacturer's representative. There is no evidence of the substance of the
manufacturer's training. Rain for Rent's regional safety manager testified that he had
the same five days of training on fusion provided by Rain for Rent fusion instructors
and that training included turning off hydraulics before reaching into a fusion
machine.
For the fusion machines Landdeck previously used, turning off the hydraulics
also shut off the heater plate. After discussing the incident with Landdeck, the
inspector believed Landdeck did not turn off hydraulic pumps because he thought he
would have to wait for the heater plate to reheat, and Landdeck was concerned about
the July 19, 2013, project deadline.
8 CP at 448.
5
No. 75615-0-1-6
Rain for Rent conducted an internal investigation. Its regional safety manager
concluded the incident was caused by (i) Landdeck's failure to follow the operator's
manual while using the fusion machine, (ii) Landdeck's failure to follow Rain for
Rent's lockout/tagout policy, (iii) Landdeck's failure to follow Rain for Rent's HDPE
pipe cleaning standard operating procedure,(iv) the speed of the fusion process to
meet the July 19 deadline, and (v) worker fatigue. The report noted Landdeck did not
shut down the hydraulic pump before "entering the pinch crush point."9
Landdeck received "written disciplinary action" as a result of this incident.10
According to Landdeck's site supervisor, having an operator's manual would probably
have helped with the heater plate shutdown because the manual would have
explained the heater plate would not lose heat even if the operator shut down the
hydraulics.
The Department citedll Rain for Rent for violating WAC 296-155-040(2), the
safe place standard.12 Rain for Rent appealed to the Board, and the Board affirmed
the citation. The Board noted,"The employer could have insisted its fusion machine
operators thoroughly read the operator's manual in order to be prepared for
9 CP at 479.
10 CP at 466.
11On September 24, 2013, the Department cited Rain for Rent for violating
WAG 296-155-035(2)(inadequate training), but issued a corrective notice on
December 16 citing Rain for Rent for violating WAG 296-155-040(2)(safe place
standard) instead.
12 "The employer did not adopt and use practices or methods which are
reasonably adequate to furnish a place of employment that is free from a recognized
hazard." CP at 533.
6
No. 75615-0-1-7
situations (like this one) which may not have been seen before by any particular
machine operator."13
The Board found Landdeck "was exposed to the potential and foreseeable
hazard of an unsafe workplace when his hands were in close proximity of the fusion
machine while he was operating the machine."14 And Rain for Rent failed to provide
a safe workplace because it failed to (i) furnish a copy of the manual to its employee,
(ii) insist its employee read the manual, or (iii) provide equivalent training. It also
found Rain for Rent "did not take effective steps to discover and correct violations of
safety rules related to the protection of its workers from potential injuries."15 It
concluded the Department "met each element of the safe place standard, WAC 296-
155-040(2), by a preponderance of the evidence."16
On appeal, the Whatcom County Superior Court affirmed the Board's decision,
concluding that substantial evidence supported the Board's decision.
Rain for Rent appeals.
ANALYSIS
We review the Board's decision directly, based on the record before the
agency.17 The Board's findings of fact "are conclusive if supported by substantial
13 CP at 57.
14 CP at 59.
15 CP at 60.
16 CP at 57.
17 J.E. DunnNw., Inc. v. Washington State Dep't of Labor & Indus., 139 Wn.
App. 35, 42, 156 P.3d 250(2007).
No. 75615-0-1-8
evidence when viewed in light of the record as a whole."18 Evidence is substantial if
it is sufficient to "persuade a fair-minded person of the truth of the declared
premise?" This court views "the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light
most favorable to the prevailing party."2° If there is substantial evidence to support
the findings, we determine whether the findings support the conclusions of law.21
I. WAC 296-155-040(2)"Safe Place Standard" Violation
Rain for Rent contends the citation should be vacated because the
Department failed to establish that Rain for Rent violated WAC 296-155-040(2), the
safe place standard.
The regulation requires an employer to "furnish each employee a place of
employment free from recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause serious
injury or death to employees."22 The regulation also requires employers to "adopt
and use practices, methods, operations, and processes which are reasonably
adequate to render such employment and place of employment safe."23
To establish a violation of a safety regulation under the Washington Industrial
Safety and Health Act(WISHA),chapter 49.17 RCW,the Department must prove
(i) the employer failed to provide a workplace free of a hazard, (ii) the hazard was
18Id. at 43(citing RCW 49.17.150(1); RCW 34.05.570(3)(e)).
19 Holland v. Boeing Co., 90 Wash. 2d 384, 390-91, 583 P.2d 621 (1978).
20 Frank Coluccio Const. Co. v. Washington Dep't of Labor & Indus., 181 Wn.
App. 25, 35, 329 P.3d 91 (2014).
21 Id. (citing RCW 49.17.150(1)).
22 WAC 296-155-040(1).
WAC 296-155-040(2).
8
No. 75615-0-1-9
recognized, (iii) the hazard was likely to cause death or serious injury, and (iv) there
were feasible means to eliminate or materially reduce the hazard.24 25
(i) Workplace Free of Hazard
Rain for Rent argues the Department did not present substantial evidence that
a hazard existed at the worksite.
Here, Landdeck was exposed to "the potential and foreseeable hazard of an
unsafe workplace when his hands were in close proximity of the fusion machine while
he was operating the machine."26 Specifically, he was injured when he attempted to
remove shavings from inside the fusion machine. Substantial evidence supports the
Board's finding that this was an unsafe work practice. Landdeck testified he did not
deactivate the machine's hydraulics before attempting to remove the shavings.
When Landdeck's leg inadvertently pressed against a lever that controlled the
machine's hydraulic jaws, his hand was crushed. The Department's construction
24 Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp., 111 Wash. App.
771, 780,48 P.3d 324(2002)(citing Donovan v. Royal Logging Co., 645 F.2d 822,
829 (9th Cir. 1981)); SeaWorld of Florida, LLC v. Perez, 748 F.3d 1202, 1207(D.C.
Cir. 2014).
25 When construing WISHA statutes, Washington courts look to parallel federal
authority under the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act(OSH Act), 29 U.S.C.
§§ 651-678. See SuperValu, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 158 Wash. 2d 422, 433,
144 P.3d 1160(2006)("As part of its burden under the general duty clause, L & I
'must specify the particular steps the employer should have taken to avoid the
citation. ..[and] must demonstrate the feasibility and likely utility of those measures.'
This is the same burden that OSH Act's general duty clause requires.")(quoting
Kaiser Aluminum, 111 Wash. App. at 780).
26 CP at 59.
9
No. 75615-0-1-10
construction safety expert, David Conley, testified that this exposed Landdeck to a
"caught-in or struck-by hazard."27
Rain for Rent offers Department of Labor & Industries v. Kaiser Aluminum &
Chemical Corporation for the proposition that its "adequate safety and training
program" negated any actual hazard at the worksite.28 But Kaiser Aluminum stands
only for the proposition that the practice of using an angle iron to support the bucket
of a small front-end loader was widely accepted in the industry, and the Department
failed to present evidence that the angle iron had failed or became dislodged to
cause the injury.29 It does not stand for Rain for Rent's suggestion that training
renders a hazard moot. Viewed in a light most favorable to the prevailing party, the
record supports the determination that a hazard existed.
(ii) Recognized Hazard
Rain for Rent contends the Department did not present substantial evidence
that the hazard was "recognized."30
A hazard is "recognized" if the employer had actual knowledge that the
condition was hazardous or it is generally known to be hazardous in the industry.31
Recognition may be proved without reference to industry practice or safety expert
27 CP at 377.
28 111 Wash. App. 771,48 P.3d 324(2002).
29 Id. at 773, 780.
30 Br. of App. at 16.
31 Kelly Springfield Tire Co. v. Donovan, 729 F.2d 317, 321 (5th Cir. 1984);
see Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Usery, 579 F.2d 536, 541 (9th Cir. 1978)
("An activity or practice may be a 'recognized hazard' even if the employer is ignorant
of the existence of the activity or practice or its potential for harm.")
10
No. 75615-0-1-11
testimony if the hazard is "obvious and glaring."32 An employer's knowledge can be
actual or constructive, and common knowledge can be used to establish that a
hazard is recognized.33
Rain for Rent narrowly defines the hazard as removing chips stuck under the
shroud and argues this particular hazard was not recognized by the company or the
industry at large. But the hazard was reaching between the jaws to remove chips, a
risk expressly recognized in the operator's manual. And reaching between the jaws
of an energized pipe fusion machine is also an "obvious and glaring" hazard.34 As
the Department's construction safety expert testified,"common sense just tells me,
from looking at the machine and how it operates, that there are many hazards."35
(iii) Caused Serious Physical Harm
It is undisputed that the Pitbull-900 fusion machine was "likely to cause death
or serious injury."36
32 Tri-State Roofing & Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health
Comm'n,685 F.2d 878, 880-81 (4th Cir. 1982).
33 See In Re: The Hertz Corn., 1996 WL 473419, at *4(Wash. Bd. Ind. Ins.
App.)(holding crossing the middle line in a road and driving the wrong way into traffic
constituted a recognized hazard).
34 See Tri-State Roofing, 685 F.2d at 880-81 ("Where a hazard is obvious and
glaring, the [Occupational Safety and Health] Commission may determine that the
hazard is recognized for purposes of the general duty clause, 29 U.S.C. s 654(a)(1),
without reference to industry practice or safety expert testimony.").
35 CP at 378(emphasis added); see CP at 328 (regarding how he determined
this was a recognized hazard even though it may have been an isolated incident, the
Department's compliance officer testified on cross-examination, "It's a pinch point on
a machine that you had access to because it's right in front of your face when you're
operating the machine.").
36 Kaiser Aluminum, 111 Wash. App. at 780.
11
No. 75615-0-1-12
(iv) Feasible Means to Correct or Materially Reduce the Hazard
Rain for Rent contends the Department failed to show that a feasible
abatement method existed to mitigate the hazard.
Employers do not have an absolute duty to make safe the working
environment of its employees.37 But employers do have the duty to abate recognized
hazards.38 An effective abatement method is one that will materially reduce or
eliminate the hazard and is a feasible and useful means of doing so.39 "Abatement is
'feasible' when it is 'economically and technologically capable of being done.'"4°
Here, the Board noted several feasible means to reduce the hazard, including
(i) attaching a safety manual to the machine, (ii) insisting its fusion machine operators
thoroughly read the operator's manual, or (iii) providing training or instruction on how
to remove shavings from a pipe fusion machine.
Rain for Rent argues the Board's ruling creates an unreasonable per se rule
that employers must "attach operator's manuals to every piece of machinery.',41 To
the contrary, attaching the manual to the machine was only one of three ways the
Board suggested Rain for Rent could have abated the hazard.
37 Baroid Div. of NL Indus., Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review
Comm'n,660 F.2d 439, 447-48 (10th Cir. 1981).
38 Id.
of Labor v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 16 O.S.H. Gas.(BNA)1105, 1993
39 Sec'v
WL 127964, *19 (0.S.H.R.C. Apr. 20, 1993).
40 SeaWorld of Florida, 748 F.3d at 1215 (quoting Baroid, 660 F.2d at 447).
41 Br. of App. at 25.
12
No. 75615-0-1-13
Rain for Rent contends having the manual with the machine would not have
made a difference because the warning is for maintenance or chip removal only "in
the context of cleaning shavings 'out of pipe ends.'"42 But the manual refers to
removing "shavings out of pipe ends and from between thejaws."43 Landdeck was
removing plastic shavings from "between the jaws" at the time of the incident.
Substantial evidence taken in the light most favorable to the Department supports the
determination that the manual's warnings applied in this setting. Rain for Rent's own
investigation also identified Landdeck's failure to follow the manual's directions as a
cause of the incident.
The Board recognized there was evidence that Landdeck may not have turned
off the hydraulics for fear that the heater plate would have to be reheated and the
delay would have jeopardized his deadline. Rain for Rent suggests reading the
manual would have been ineffective because the manual did not state the hydraulic
pump and heater plate were separately controlled. But the manual shows the
hydraulic pump and the heater are controlled by separate on/off switches. The
depiction of the separate switches in the manual supports a reasonable inference
that the hydraulics could be shut off independently of the heater plate.
Rain for Rent contends Landdeck was trained and aware of the pinch point
potential of the fusion machine. The JSAs acknowledged that pinch points were
hazards, but contrary to Rain for Rent's contention advanced at oral argument, the
42 Br. of App. at 17.
43 CP at 576(emphasis added).
13
No. 75615-0-1-14
JSA's did not address what steps employees should take if they encounter shavings
getting caught in the machine. And the compliance officer noted during his
investigation Landdeck had no formal training in this model of fuser, there was no
formal company policy for shavings removal using this size pipe, and Landdeck "was
not aware that the hydraulics could be shut off independent of the heating pad
because it was a newer model of machine that he hadn't worked with before on the
fusion."'"
Taking the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to
the Department,(i) providing the operator's manual, (ii) insisting the employee read
the manual, and (iii) specific training on chip removal were each feasible means to
mitigate the hazard.
We conclude the Board properly affirmed the safe place standard violation.
II. Unpreventable Employee Misconduct
Rain for Rent argues the citation should be vacated because it resulted from
unpreventable employee misconduct.
The Department may not issue a citation if unpreventable employee
misconduct caused the violation.45 To establish this affirmative defense,46 the
employer must show:
44 CP at 322.
45 RCW 49.17.120(5)(a).
46Potelco, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 194 Wn. App. 428,435, 377 P.3d
251 (2016), review denied, 186 Wn.2d 1024(2016).
14
No. 75615-0-1-15
(i) A thorough safety program, including work rules, training, and
equipment designed to prevent the violation;
(ii) Adequate communication of these rules to employees;
(iii) Steps to discover and correct violations of its safety rules; and
(iv) Effective enforcement of its safety program as written in practice
and not just in theory.[471
"An employer asserting the defense must prove each element."45 The "evidence
must support the employer's assertion that the employees' misconduct was an
isolated occurrence and was not foreseeable.'"49 We apply the substantial evidence
standard to our review of Rain for Rent's proof of its unpreventable employee
misconduct defense.59
First, Rain for Rent contends its safety program was thorough because it
included a lockout/tagout policy that "instructed employees on how to isolate
hazardous energy" and Landdeck participated in training from the machine's
manufacturer.51 But there is a factual dispute as to when Landdeck reviewed the
lockout/tagout policy, and there is no evidence the lockout/tagout policy addressed
the safe removal of shavings from the fusion machine. Additionally, Rain for Rent did
47 RCW 49.17.120(5)(a).
48Potelco, Inc., 194 Wash. App. at 435.
49 Id. (quoting BD Roofing, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 139 Wash. App. 98,
111, 161 P.3d 387(2007)).
59 Legacy Roofing, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 129 Wash. App. 356, 363, 119
P.3d 366 (2005).
51 Br. of App. at 28.
15
No. 75615-0-1-16
not establish when the manufacturer's training occurred, and there is no evidence of
the substance of Landdeck's specific training with the manufacturer.
Here, the Board noted Rain for Rent "offered records of various safety
meetings that purport to reflect a safety program that includes regular safety
meetings, training, and communication of the safety program to employees."52 The
regional safety manager testified that Rain for Rent has eight chapters of policies,
procedures, and written safety rules, with approximately between fifteen and twenty
different safety rules in each chapter. The Rain for Rent fusion instructors teach
operators to turn off hydraulics before reaching into a machine. But the absence of
training on safe removal of shavings from between the jaws, without providing the
required operator's manual or requiring Landdeck to review the manual, leaves
doubts about the thoroughness of Rain for Rent's safety program.
Second, Rain for Rent contends it adequately communicated its safety rules to
employees. But the Board observed,"testimony from Mr. Landdeck in regards to
[lockout/tagout] policies and his use of the fusion machine suggests that
communication of the company's policies were neither accomplished nor effective
from Mr. Landdeck's perspective."53 Here, Landdeck told the inspector that he had
not seen the lockout/tagout policy before and did not review the standard operating
procedure for pipe cleaning. He gave equivocal "it's possible" answers to several
questions about the safety policies. Rain for Rent's description of its policies in the
52 CP at 58.
53 CP at 58.
16
No. 75615-0-1-17
record does not establish it adequately communicated to Landdeck the need to turn
off the hydraulic pump before placing his hand between the jaws of the machine.
Landdeck's equivocal testimony, along with the compliance officer's report, show a
confused understanding of the policies, training, standard operating procedure, and
JSAs as applied to removal of shavings.54
Third, Rain for Rent contends its safety program is effective in practice
because only one injury took place in the past five years, it had a "lower than average
amount of workers compensation claims," and it made efforts to comply with safety
standards before the Department's inspection.55 But "in order for the employer to
prove that the enforcement of its safety program is effective, it must prove that the
employee's misconduct was not foreseeable."56
Here, the manual addressed removing plastic shavings. The Department's
construction expert testified that, by mentioning shavings in its manual, the
manufacturer would "expect this as part of normal operations."57 Rain for Rent's
regional safety manager testified that the impending deadline for the work to be
completed was a contributing factor to the incident. Given this context, absent review
64 Rain for Rent also emphasizes the inaccurate observation by the Board that
Landdeck completed the JSAs after the incident, although it is clear they were
completed before the incident. But this inaccuracy does not undercut the Board's
concerns about ineffective communication regarding the lockout/tagout policy and
removal of shavings.
66 Br. of App. at 30-31.
66 Legacy Roofing, 129 Wash. App. at 366-67.
67 CP at 387.
17
No. 75615-0-1-18
of an operator's manual or equivalent training, it was foreseeable that Landdeck
would reach into the machine to remove shavings.
We conclude Rain for Rent failed to prove this incident was the result of
unpreventable employee misconduct, thus its affirmative defense fails.58
III. More Specific Standard
Rain for Rent argues the citation must be vacated because a more specific
standard applies. Rain for Rent contends WAC 296-155-110, accident prevention
program regulation, is more appropriate in this setting because it covers "violative
conditions" such as inadequate safety plans.58
Under WAC 296-155-110(2), each employer must "develop a formal accident-
prevention program, tailored to the needs of the particular plant or operation and to
the type of hazard involved." The regulation specifies that the program must be
outlined in a written format and lists minimal program elements for all employers.80
As the Board recognized, WAC 296-155-110 is not more specific than the safe
place standard in this setting because "an accident prevention program applies
universally to worksites and generally applies no more specifically to the facts of this
case than they would in most other worksite situations."61 The Department's expert
witness even acknowledged Rain for Rent has "what is actually a very good written
55 We need not address whether Rain for Rent took adequate steps to
discover and correct safety violations. See Br. of App. at 29.
59 Br. of App. at 34.
8° WAC 296-155-110(3)(4).
61 CP at 57.
18
No. 75615-0-1-19
accident prevention program."62 The safe place standard requires employers to
provide places of employment that are free of recognized hazards,63 a more specific
standard as applied here.
We conclude WAC 296-155-110 was not a more specific applicable standard
in this setting. Therefore, we affirm.
WE CONCUR:
eux,
62 CP at 397.
63 WAC 296-155-040.
19