Nobody downloaded yet

R. Williams Construction Co. v. OSHRC - Research Paper Example

Comments (0) Cite this document
WILLIAMS CONSTRUCTION CO. V. OSHRC Name University Course Instructor Date Introduction The case anchors on the laws and policies of OSHRC – an occupations Health and Security Regulation. The act aims to guarantee employees safety and security while at work…
Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER91.2% of users find it useful
R. Williams Construction Co. v. OSHRC
Read TextPreview

Extract of sample "R. Williams Construction Co. v. OSHRC"

Download file to see previous pages After a serious investigation, the company was charged with some Occupational Safety and Health offences, which lead to expensive penalties. Discussion The paper will investigate the Williams construction company in relation to OSHA Act. It seeks to highlight the legal issues in the case, employer’s violation of the Act, and the role of the workers in maintaining the liability under the act. Legal issues The trench collapse that caused the death and serious injury of two Williams Company employees and the company’s violation of the OSHA Act summarizes the main legal issues in the case. Therefore, the legal concerns, who is responsible for upholding the violations of certain Occupational Safety and Health principles? Is it the court or the Williams construction company? The employer’s failures or violations After the investigation, the OSHA Act charged the Williams Construction company with a number of violations. First, the company failed to instruct and equip the workers and managers with necessary strategies on how to identify and avoid hazardous working environment, as demanded by the OSHA regulations, (Wilshusen, Berg, Brookie, Okizaki & American Bar Association, (2008). The company did not provide any safety training to both the employees and managers in charge. For instance, Secondly, the company failed to make sure that the two workers did not need to move over 25 feet to a secure region, based on the OSHA Act requirements. The Act assumed that the employees were unaware of the depth they should attempt because the company did not issue any instruction about it. The company similarly, broke the law by offering just one safe egress mechanism at the east side of the forty-five deep excavation. Even though, it seems that one pump was stationed over twenty-five feet far from the ramp of the trench, the exact pumps’ position or the exact location of the employees verse the ramp during the collapse of the excavations, is rather immaterial. A person working not more than twenty-five feet away from the exit may prefer to move far away from the point of egress to do his work satisfactorily. Therefore, it is justified to predict that any workers already in the dangerous zone will be automatically exposed to the hazard itself. Therefore, this OSHA regulation applies irrespective of whether workers were exposed to real hazard during the time of trench fall. According to OSHA regulation, a violation is validated if a worker has access to hazardous zones over twenty-five feet away from egress means. Third, the company did not have a competent expert, trained mainly to ensure trench safety. The Act requires that the construction company should have a competent expert with certain knowledge and expertise in analysis of soil and protective mechanisms and able to identify fatal conditions. In additions, the company should have an expert to conduct routine excavation inspections to ensure hazardous conditions are identifies as required by OSHA regulations, (Genson, Kerezman & American Bar Association, 2006). For instance, John, the supervisor confessed that he had not seen the safety manual of the company located at backside of the trucks seat. Additionally, the company did not train him as an OSHRC competent expert and had no any training apart from his job. Fourthly, the company did not ensure that the trench ways are supported and slopped based on the regulation requirements. Therefore, on the four above violations, the Labor Secretary ...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
(“R. Williams Construction Co. v. OSHRC Research Paper”, n.d.)
R. Williams Construction Co. v. OSHRC Research Paper. Retrieved from
(R. Williams Construction Co. V. OSHRC Research Paper)
R. Williams Construction Co. V. OSHRC Research Paper.
“R. Williams Construction Co. V. OSHRC Research Paper”, n.d.
  • Cited: 0 times
Comments (0)
Click to create a comment or rate a document

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF R. Williams Construction Co. v. OSHRC

Keegan v Newcastle United Football Co Ltd

...? CASE of Kevin Keegan v Newcastle United Football Club Ltd Premier League Manager's Arbitration Tribunal 20 October 2009 2009 WL 5641054 Philip Havers QC (Chairman) Lord Pannick QC Kenneth Merrett 1 October 2009 Introduction In this case, Keegan v Newcastle United Football Co Ltd, the claimant is Kevin Keegan (former football manager) and the respondent is the Newcastle United Football Co Ltd. The legal issue concerns constructive dismissal of the manager and the fundamental terms of employment contract, a breach of which entitled him to succeed on constructive dismissal claim. The Arbitration Tribunal declared that Kevin Keegan was...
8 Pages(2000 words)Essay

Rob Reiss (R&R)

...? (Assignment) R&R Case Rob Reiss is business minded person with extraordinary potentials and innovative concepts who established hisown national rep firm in 1959 and specialized in adult games. As he was driven by high ambitions, he sold his concern to an American Stock Exchange Company in exchange of shares. Then he built his own game manufacturing division and remained in this field for next five years so that he could acquire a better stature for his company. As a result of his expertise in the game industry, he could successfully identify the market changes and rapidly respond to those changes. The ‘Trivial Pursuit’ was the game developed in the Canada and subsequently introduced in the U.S at the...
3 Pages(750 words)Case Study

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co

...? Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co Introduction Tort law exists to ensure that businesses and entrepreneurial undertakings are exacted within the provisions of the law and that fraud, debauchery and breach of contract are kept under, in the business world. Given the competitive nature of businesses and the desire to actualize profit maximization, cases that touch on tort law still appear in the court law. Nonetheless, there are tort cases that stem from accidents, unforeseen and even foreseen circumstances that harm clients. This is because; there are laws that explicitly spell out the obligation of corporate entities in ensuring public safety and the responsibility these entities are to be charged...
5 Pages(1250 words)Essay

Walt Disney Co. V. Beijing Publishing Press

...?Walt Disney Co. V. Beijing Publishing Press This case involves an infringement of intellectual property rights. Intellectual property involves creations of the mind, artistic work, symbols, names, or images used in commerce. Intellectual property has two divisions in that it includes industrial property such as trademarks and industrial designs. In addition, it includes copyrights that comprise literary work such as novels, poems, films, and performances. Intellectual property rights (IPR) as any other right gives the owners of intangible assets like patents, trademarks, and copyrights the freedom to enjoy from their own creations. IPR is protected by Article 27 of the Universal Declaration Of Human...
4 Pages(1000 words)Essay

R v Adomako, Law case

...?The case of R. v Adamako case was decided in the House of Lords by a bench composed of Lords Clashfern, Keith of Kinkel, Goff of Chieveley, Browne-Wilkinson and Woolf. This case discussed the offence of involuntary manslaughter whereby a medical practitioner who was supposed to administer anaesthesia to a patient was accused of being negligent in his duties. The appellant while in his duties in treating a patient with an eye ailment failed to notice that an oxygen pipe he had connected during an eye operation had been disconnected resulting in the death of the patient. The jury found him guilty of the offence of manslaughter after which he appealed and the Court of Appeal after which he moved to the...
6 Pages(1500 words)Essay

Complete case brief of Nix v. Williams

...Case brief of Nix v. Williams Facts The defendant, Mr. Williams was apprehended and his rights regarding the murder of the child were read to him – after giving information that led law enforcement personnel to the recovery of the body of the victim. The officer that collected the information from him had passed it to officials that had been continuing the search. The statements made by Williams were not admissible as evidence at the court during a trial, but the recovered body, the information from chemical and medical tests, and photographic information were admitted as evidence against him. During the trial of Williams, the court held that, even in...
4 Pages(1000 words)Case Study

Philip Morris USA v. Williams. Brief facts

...Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 549 U.S. 346 (2007) BRIEF FACTS The facts of this case are that Williams who wasthe widow of a man who was a chain smoker for last four decades, smoking three packs of cigarettes daily and eventually died due to lung cancer in the year 1997 at a age of 55 years, she brought a suit against the tobacco major Philips Morris for misling her husband in particular and thousands like him in general to smoke their brand of cigarettes through attractive sales and marketing campaigns. According to her petition Philip Morris never disclosed the harmful and dangerous after effects of smoking cigarettes to its potential customers and was just interested in jacking up...
3 Pages(750 words)Case Study

R v Hayter [2005]

...R v Hayter Introduction This work deals with an analysis of the case R V Hayter. In this regard, relevant legal principles relating to the issue of confession have been examined. Procedural and legal issues in the case have been scrutinised. In addition, opinions of the judges and evidentiary principles have been discussed. With the rejection of the appeal to the House of Lords, in R v Hayter, it was clearly established that the confession of a defendant could be admitted as evidence against a co – defendant in a jointly tried criminal case. The reasoning behind this common law principle is that a confession is evidence...
4 Pages(1000 words)Essay

Business Employment Law (R. Williams Construction Co. v. OSHRC)

...R. Williams Construction Co. v. OSHRC Number The Legal issues R. Williams Construction Co. v. OSHRC is a case involving injury of two employees in the workplace. The respondent, Williams, maintained the construction site at Chumash Casino Project, Santa Ynez, California, where it was building a sewer system. The regulating Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Commission) argued that construction project constituted activities which by its nature affected interstate commerce....
3 Pages(750 words)Assignment
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.

Let us find you another Research Paper on topic R. Williams Construction Co. v. OSHRC for FREE!

Contact Us