Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

OSHA failed to show reasonable danger in conveyor accident

Reprints
safety

The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission administrative law judge vacated a $7,577 fine issued to a conveyor belt supply company after an employee’s hand was seriously injured in a mishap caused by an unguarded conveyor belt, ruling that there lacked proof that the company could have reasonably predicted the danger.

In July 2019, workers were installing a conveyor belt on a potato truck in Lewisville, Idaho, as part of a contract that it remove an old conveyor belt from a potato truck and install a new one. While checking the installation, observing unguarded parts, one worker who was in a kneeling position reached out to the truck for support and “mistakenly” placed his hand into part of the moving conveyor belt’s roller resulting in broken bones and the partial de-glovement of his hand, according to documents in Secretary of Labor v. Purvis Industries, LLC, d/b/a Snake River Supply, filed in Washington, D.C.

Upon inspection of the incident, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited Snake River Supply with a serious violation, alleging employees were exposed to an unguarded ingoing nip point on a truck’s conveyor belt.

The judge, while dismissing some of the employer’s arguments regarding issues such as knowledge of a hazardous condition and training, maintained that the Secretary of Labor “provided no evidence to show that it was reasonably predictable an employee would be near an unguarded roller at the back of the truck.”

“While the Secretary proved that Respondent had constructive knowledge of the hazardous condition, he did not prove that Respondent was required to guard the ingoing nip points on the conveyor belt because there was no evidence it was reasonably predictable that by necessity or normal practice an employee would be in the zone of danger for the hazardous condition,” the ruling states.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Next