United States of America

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1120 20th Street, N.W., Ninth Floor 

Washington, DC 20036-3457

 

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant, 

v. OSHRC Docket No. 08-1656 

CENTRAL FLORIDA EQUIPMENT 

RENTALS, INC.,

Respondent.

ON BRIEFS: 

John Shortall, Attorney; Heather R. Phillips, Counsel for Appellate Litigation; Joseph M. 

Woodward, Associate Solicitor; M. Patricia Smith, Solicitor; U.S. Department of Labor, 

Washington, DC 

 For the Complainant 

Vincent F. Vaccarella; Vincent F. Vaccarella, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, FL 

 For the Respondent 

DECISION 

Before: ATTWOOD, Chairman and MACDOUGALL, Commissioner. 

BY THE COMMISSION:

Central Florida Equipment Rentals, Inc., is an employer located in Medley, Florida, 

which provides labor and equipment for road construction and repair, excavations, and trenching. 

Following a July 22, 2008 fatality at a Central Florida worksite—the Miami-Dade County Water 

and Sewer Treatment Facility located in Homestead, Florida—the Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration conducted an inspection. As a result of the inspection, OSHA issued a 

one-item citation to Central Florida alleging a serious violation of the Material Handling 

Equipment standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1926.602(a)(3)(i) (access roadways and grades), and proposing 

a penalty of $4,900. Administrative Law Judge Dennis L. Phillips affirmed the citation and 

assessed the proposed penalty. Central Florida’s timely Petition for Discretionary Review was 
2 

granted, and both parties filed briefs on review. We affirm the citation and penalty, but for 

reasons other than those set forth in the judge’s decision.1

BACKGROUND

Central Florida was engaged to raise the elevation of a berm that formed the edge of a 

water retention pond at the treatment facility. The berm included a 250-foot long, straight manmade strip running between the pond and the facility’s boundary fence, and functioned as a wall 

to hold the water in the retention pond. The parties stipulate that the berm was between 7.4 and 

9.6 feet above ground level, and that it was made of rock, sandy soil, and gravel, and lacked 

visible holes. 

On the morning of July 22, 2008, Central Florida began working on the berm around the 

water retention pond. The parties stipulate that on this morning, Central Florida foreman John 

Villa walked the berm to perform a visual inspection. Villa testified that he observed the 

condition of the berm, measured it and checked for holes, and determined it was fairly level. He 

recorded his observations on Central Florida’s “Berm Daily Safety Checklist,” which the 

company’s safety director instructed him to use at the start of each work day to identify any 

unsafe conditions on the berm. 

Central Florida was to raise the berm’s height by about six inches by adding fill material 

on top of the berm. To place the fill material, Villa, along with Central Florida’s general 

superintendent Martin Holman and project manager Marcus Themes, decided to use a Caterpillar 

Model 725 Articulating Dump Truck (“CAT”), which is a six-wheel dump truck that the parties 

stipulate is 9.5 feet wide from wheel to wheel, weighs approximately 25 tons without any 

payload, and has a maximum weight capacity of 51 tons when fully loaded. Central Florida 

loaded the CAT with fill at one end of the berm and unloaded it before exiting the berm at the 

other end. Between trips, Central Florida used a bulldozer to spread out the fill and then a roller 

to compact the material. At the same time, the CAT made a circular loop around the pond and 

returned to the beginning of the berm, where it reloaded with fill and dumped it on the berm once 

again as the other vehicles exited at the other end. Prior to July 22, 2008, Central Florida had not 

 

1 We deny Central Florida’s request for oral argument, as the record and briefs are sufficient to 

decide the case. See MetWest, Inc., 22 BNA OSHC 1066, 1067 n.2 (No. 04-0594, 2007), aff’d, 

560 F.3d 506 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 
3 

used the CAT on this particular berm. Later that day, while the CAT was traversing the berm, it 

fell into the pond. There were no witnesses to the accident, in which the operator was trapped 

inside the CAT and drowned. 

DISCUSSION

I. Serious Citation 1, Item 1 (safe movement on access roadways and grades) 

The Secretary alleges that Central Florida’s use of the CAT on the berm violated 

§ 1926.602(a)(3)(i),2 which states:

No employer shall move or cause to be moved construction equipment or vehicles 

upon any access roadway or grade unless the access roadway or grade is 

constructed and maintained to accommodate safely the movement of the 

equipment and vehicles involved. 

The judge found that the Secretary proved a violation and rejected Central Florida’s 

alleged affirmative defense that the standard is unconstitutionally vague regarding an employer’s 

compliance obligations.3 On review, Central Florida argues that in rejecting its vagueness 

argument, the judge erroneously relied on the testimony of witnesses unfamiliar with industry 

practice, which Central Florida claims is impermissible under relevant Eleventh Circuit 

precedent.4 In response, the Secretary argues that the testimony of his witnesses, along with 

 

2 Specifically, the citation alleged that on or about July 22, 2008, “an employee was exposed to a 

drowning hazard while operating a Caterpillar Model 725, Articulating Truck on top of unstable 

soil of a berm at the edge of a retention pond.”

3 To establish a violation of an OSHA standard, the Secretary must show that: (1) the standard 

applies; (2) the employer failed to comply with the terms of that standard; (3) employees had 

access to the violative conditions; and (4) the employer had actual or constructive knowledge of 

the violative conditions (i.e., the employer either knew or, with the exercise of reasonable 

diligence should have known of the violative conditions). Atl. Battery Co., 16 BNA OSHC 

2131, 2138 (No. 90-1747, 1994). We agree with the judge’s finding that the cited standard 

applies and note that Central Florida does not challenge the judge’s finding that the Secretary 

established employee exposure to the cited condition. 

4 Because the worksite and company headquarters are in Florida, this decision may be appealed 

to the Eleventh Circuit. See Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. § 660(a) & 

(b); Kerns Bros. Tree Serv., 18 BNA OSHC 2064, 2067 (No. 96-1719, 2000) (“Where it is 

probable that a decision will be appealed to a certain circuit, the Commission generally applies 

the law of that circuit.”). We note that the Eleventh Circuit has adopted Fifth Circuit decisions 

issued before September 30, 1981, as its body of precedent. Bonner v. City of Pritchard, 661 

F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc); see also Fla. Mach. & Foundry, Inc. v. OS[]HRC, 
4 

other evidence, is sufficient to establish that a “reasonably prudent employer” in the industry 

would have recognized that use of the CAT on the berm was hazardous, and that, in any event, 

that hazard was obvious. 

A. Vagueness/Fair Notice

As a threshold matter, we note that the judge and the Secretary incorrectly frame Central 

Florida’s vagueness argument in terms of whether the company was on notice that its use of the 

CAT on the berm posed a hazard. “[I]t is well settled that the Secretary need not prove the 

existence of a hazard each time a standard is enforced, unless the standard by its terms is 

operative only when a hazard has been established.” Am. Steel Works, 9 BNA OSHC 1549, 1551 

n.4 (No. 77-553, 1981). Most OSHA standards regulate a particular condition and, therefore, 

presume the existence of a hazard. See Mark A. Rothstein, Occupational Safety and Health Law

§ 5:24 (2016 ed.) (“Before promulgating a standard the Secretary is required to consider the need 

for each measure of safety and health protection. Therefore, the Secretary is not ordinarily 

required to prove the existence of a hazard each time a standard is enforced because the 

promulgation of a standard presupposes the existence of a hazard.”) (and cases cited therein). In 

other words, the promulgation of such a standard means OSHA has established that the specified 

condition presents a hazard. See, e.g., Bunge Corp. v. Sec’y of Labor, 638 F.2d 831, 835 (5th 

Cir. 1981) (“When the violative element is only a condition, hazard is presumed, and the 

Secretary need only show the existence of the violative condition and worker exposure to the 

condition.” (citing Cent. of Ga. R.R. Co. v. OSHRC, 576 F.2d 620 (5th Cir. 1978); AnningJohnson Co. v. OSHRC, 516 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir. 1975); Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc. v. Sec’y of 

Labor, 511 F.2d 864, 869 (10th Cir. 1975)); Kaspar Electroplating Corp., 16 BNA OSHC 1517, 

1523 (No. 90-2866, 1993). This contrasts with standards in which the presence of a hazard is an 

element in the text of the standard itself. See, e.g., 29 C.F.R. § 1910.132(a) (requiring equipment 

such as PPE “wherever it is necessary by reason of hazards”). The provision at issue here, 

§ 1926.602(a)(3)(i), is typical of most standards; it regulates a condition without setting the 

existence of a hazard as one of its prerequisite elements: “No employer shall move or cause to be 

moved construction equipment or vehicles upon any access roadway or grade unless the access 

 

693 F.2d 119 (11th Cir. 1982) (noting that Fifth Circuit decisions cited are precedential in the 

Eleventh Circuit).
5 

roadway or grade is constructed and maintained to accommodate safely the movement of the 

equipment and vehicles involved.” (Emphasis added.) 

The provision’s “unless” clause constitutes an exception to the prohibition against 

moving equipment on an access roadway. WEBSTER’S NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY (1977) 

(“unless” means: “except on the condition that”). Accordingly, under well-established court and 

Commission precedent, it is Central Florida’s burden to prove that the berm was “constructed 

and maintained to accommodate safely the movement of” the equipment. U.S. v. First City Nat’l 

Bank of Houston, 386 U.S. 361, 366 (1967) (party claiming benefit of exception to statute’s 

prohibition bears burden to prove entitlement to claimed exception); Bardav, Inc., 24 BNA 

OSHC 2105, 2107-08 (No. 10-1055, 2014) (noting that “party claiming the benefit of an 

exception bears the burden of proving that its case falls within that exception,” and finding that 

the respondent did not satisfy that burden) (citation omitted); StanBest, Inc., 11 BNA OSHC 

1222, 1226 (No. 76-4355, 1983) (rejecting the respondent’s claim of entitlement to exception 

because of failure to show factual basis to support the claim). In these circumstances, for 

purposes of the Secretary’s prima facie case with regard to noncompliance, he need only show 

that the CAT was used on an access roadway, which violates the standard’s prohibition against 

doing so. Central Florida would then have to show that the berm was constructed and 

maintained to safely accommodate the CAT. 

Therefore, the vagueness inquiry is not whether Central Florida knew there was a hazard, 

but whether it knew or had fair notice of what actions are required under the standard. See, e.g., 

J.A. Jones Constr. Co., 15 BNA OSHC 2201, 2205-06 (No. 87-2059, 1993) (finding employer 

had actual notice that compliance with accident prevention program required under broadlyworded training provision would require “specific measures for detecting and correcting fall 

hazards”).5

 

 

5 The Commission has held, when a respondent argues that it lacked knowledge of its legal 

obligations under a standard because it was either vague or ambiguous, that it is immaterial 

whether the respondent knew its practice violated the standard; rather, it is sufficient that the 

respondent had fair notice of the standard’s requirements and was aware of the physical 

conditions and practices that violate it. See, e.g., Brock v. Williams Enters. of Ga. Inc., 832 F.2d 

567, 572 (11th Cir, 1987) (“ ‘[t]he constitution does not require that employers be actually aware 

that the regulation is applicable to their conduct.’ ”) (citation omitted); Froedtert Mem. Lutheran 

Hosp. Inc., 20 BNA OSHC 1500, 1509 (No. 97-1839, 2004) (rejecting hospital’s defense of 
6 

We also note that there is no question that the cited provision is a “performance” 

standard. It identifies an objective—ensuring that an “access roadway or grade is constructed 

and maintained to accommodate safely the movement of the equipment and vehicles involved”—

but does not specify the means for accomplishing it. § 1926.602(a)(3)(i). See Siemens Energy & 

Automation Inc., 20 BNA OSHC 2196, 2198 (No. 00-1052, 2005) (describing press inspection 

program requirement as “a broad, performance-oriented standard” that “provides employers with 

a certain degree of discretion in determining what . . . is appropriate to ensure that its program 

meets the standard’s stated objective.”). Under Commission precedent, “because performance 

standards . . . do not identify specific obligations, they are interpreted in light of what is 

reasonable.” Thomas Indus. Coatings, Inc., 21 BNA OSHC 2283, 2287 (No. 97-1073, 2007). 

Central Florida argues that the Secretary must prove that the company’s actions were 

unreasonable based on evidence of industry custom and practice. In support, the company cites 

Eleventh Circuit precedent requiring such evidence in cases involving generally-worded personal 

protective equipment standards that, in contrast to this case, do not presume the existence of a 

hazard. See Farrens Tree Surgeons, Inc., 15 BNA OSHC 1793, 1794 (No. 90-998, 1992) 

(applying Eleventh Circuit doctrine to § 1910.132(a)) (citing Fla. Mach. & Foundry v. 

OS[]HRC, 693 F.2d 119 (11th Cir. 1982); see also Cotter & Co., 598 F.2d 911, 913 (5th Cir. 

1979) (same).6

 However, regardless of whether the cited standard is a performance standard that 

presumes a hazard, the Eleventh Circuit has recognized that industry custom and practice 

evidence is “irrelevant” when the employer has actual knowledge of its compliance obligations.7 

 

mistaken belief that it was not temporary workers’ “employer” and therefore was not required to 

comply with vaccination requirement, explaining that “any misunderstanding of law would not 

be relevant to whether a violation is established, especially where the statute plainly states that it 

applies to any ‘employer,’ and case law interpreting the meaning of that term under the OSH Act 

predates the . . . citation.”) (citations omitted).

6 Fifth Circuit precedent applicable in the Eleventh Circuit has also expressed this concept as a 

requirement that the Secretary demonstrate that a reasonable person familiar with the 

circumstances surrounding the hazardous condition, including any facts unique to the particular 

industry, would recognize the hazard in question. See, e.g., Ryder Truck Lines v. Brennan, 497 

F.2d 230, 233-34 (5th Cir. 1974) (addressing § 1910.132(a)). 

7 Actual knowledge in the context of a vagueness defense is distinct from the employer 

knowledge element necessary to prove a prima facie violation of section 5(a)(2) of the Act, 29 

U.S.C. § 654(a)(2). Cleveland Consol., Inc., 13 BNA OSHC 1114, 1117 n.5 (No. 84-696, 1987). 
7 

Cotter, 598 F.2d at 914 (recognizing that “ ‘the problem of fair notice does not exist’ ” where an 

employer is shown to have actual knowledge of what is required) (citations omitted). 

Here, we find that Central Florida actually knew of measures that it understood were 

needed to ensure the berm, which was adjacent to the pond, would safely accommodate the CAT. 

First, Villa admitted that the amount of clearance between the sides of the CAT and the edges of 

the berm is an important safety consideration; so he attempted to determine that clearance. 

Second, Villa admitted that the weight of the loaded CAT is an “important factor in determining 

whether a berm is strong enough to hold a load,” and he had assumed that the berm could 

support the loaded CAT because of Central Florida’s prior experience working around the area 

of a nearby berm. Accordingly, Central Florida had actual knowledge that before using the CAT 

on the berm, it had to determine (1) the clearance and (2) the load-bearing capacity of the berm 

relative to the combined weight of the CAT and its load, so that it could then assess whether the 

clearance and load-bearing capacity were adequate “to accommodate safely the movement of the 

equipment and vehicles involved.” § 1926.602(a)(3)(i). See Cotter, 598 F.2d at 914. Thus, 

Central Florida’s awareness that clearance and load-bearing capacity are important safety 

considerations establishes that it knew obtaining the information necessary to assess them was 

required by the standard. Consequently, Central Florida’s notice argument fails.8

 

B. Noncompliance

In affirming the violation, the judge concluded that Central Florida failed to comply with 

§ 1926.602(a)(3)(i) because it was both foreseeable and obvious that it would be unsafe to 

repeatedly drive “a vehicle the size and the weight of the CAT 725 on top of the berm . . . .” 

Central Florida argues that it complied with its obligations by making “observations regarding 

the work on the berm and its capability to hold larger equipment, measuring the berm to ensure 

 

8 Because we reject Central Florida’s fair notice defense based on its acknowledgement that the 

berm’s clearance and load-bearing capacity were necessary considerations in determining 

whether the CAT could safely be used on the berm, it is unnecessary for us to reach the question 

of whether the record establishes that this was industry practice. Cotter, 598 F.2d at 914. We 

note, however, that two witnesses familiar with the industry—Villa and Holman—testified that 

they considered the clearance, the equipment weight when loaded, and the berm’s load-bearing 

capacity. Indeed Central Florida asserts on review that “consistent with industry standard and 

practice,” Villa and Holman testified that they “visually inspected the berm, observed larger 

vehicles safely crossing it [and] measured the berm to ensure the CAT had safe clearance . . . .” 
8 

clearance, prior use of the CAT 725 on a narrower berm, instructi[ng] . . . the crew how to 

properly drive the vehicles across the berm, and the creation of the berm safety checklist.” On 

review, Central Florida also argues that the Secretary failed to prove that a hazard existed—

specifically, that “the Secretary failed to introduce any evidence that the berm had any defects, 

detectable by basic human senses, which could have caused it to collapse.” 

As discussed above, the cited standard presumes a hazard by prohibiting the employer 

from moving construction equipment on an access roadway “unless” the roadway “is constructed 

and maintained to accommodate safely” that equipment. § 1926.602(a)(3)(i) (emphasis added); 

see Am. Steel Works, 9 BNA OSHC at 1551 n.4. The performance measures Central Florida 

itself understood were necessary here—ascertaining the clearance and determining that the berm 

could support the CAT’s weight—were required irrespective of whether the berm actually 

presented a hazard. See Simplex Time Recorder Co. v. Sec’y of Labor, 766 F.2d 575, 588 (D.C. 

Cir. 1985) (stating that “[t]he fact that the hazard which the regulation protects against” had not 

occurred at the employer’s workplace “is no defense to the violation.”); Andrew Catapano 

Enters., Inc., 17 BNA OSHC 1776, 1780 n.6 (No. 90-0050, 1996) (consolidated) (rejecting 

argument that a violation for failure to provide training on trenching hazards is contingent on a 

finding that the trench was actually hazardous). Indeed, in order to establish a violation, it need

not be proved that the accident here was caused by the employer’s failure to take these measures. 

See Am. Wrecking Corp., 19 BNA OSHC 1703, 1707 n.4 (No. 96-1330, 2001) (consolidated) 

(“Determining whether the standard was violated is not dependent on the cause of an accident.”), 

aff’d in relevant part, 351 F.3d 1254 (D.C. Cir. 2003). 

The Secretary contends that Central Florida failed to comply with the cited provision 

because it drove the CAT on the berm without determining whether it could safely accommodate 

the CAT’s movement on it, including both clearance and load-bearing capacity. We agree, and 

find that Central Florida failed to comply with the requirements of the standard.

 Clearance

To determine the relevant clearance, Central Florida needed to ascertain the width of both 

the berm and the CAT. The record shows that Villa measured the berm “between the [elevation] 

stakes that were on the top of the berm” and determined that it was 12 to 14 feet wide. However, 

photographs in evidence show that there were several sets of stakes on the berm and Villa did not 

specify whether he measured one set of stakes that yielded a measurement of 12 to 14 feet, or 
9 

measured all sets of stakes and determined that the narrowest was 12 feet and the widest was 14 

feet. In contrast, the testimony of the Miami-Dade Police Department officer who investigated 

the accident was clear and specific—he testified that his fellow detective measured the berm and 

found that it was 10 feet 4 inches at the narrowest point and 14 feet 2 inches at the widest point.9

 

We credit the officer’s more definite testimony over Villa’s vague explanation and find, as did 

the judge, that in at least one location the berm was 10 feet 4 inches wide.10 See Atl. Battery Co., 

16 BNA OSHC 2131, 2185 (No. 90-1747, 1994) (concluding that company president’s vague, 

generalized testimony was insufficient to rebut industrial hygienist’s specific testimony); Nat’l 

Archives and Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 174 (2004) (“The presumption of 

regularity supports the official acts of public officers and, in the absence of clear evidence to the 

contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties.”) (citing United 

States v. Chem. Found., Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926)).

As to the width of the CAT, the parties’ joint pre-hearing statement stipulates that it is 

“9.5 feet from wheel to wheel.”11 Even if we were to construe Villa’s testimony most favorably 

 

9 The officer testified that in the area where the accident occurred, some of the width of the berm 

was lost as a result of the accident, but that the measurements he attested to were not in that area; 

rather, they were made in the area leading to the accident scene.

10 Villa testified that the stakes, which were used to mark how high to add the fill, were “in a 

little bit from the top of the berm” by “approximately a foot.” It is unclear from this description 

exactly where the stakes were positioned. 

11 Chairman Attwood notes that when Villa was asked at the hearing about the CAT’s width and 

whether he measured it, he testified that it was “between eight and a half and nine feet wide.” 

The judge inferred that by giving a range for the CAT’s width “it is clear that Mr. Villa had no 

actual knowledge of the precise width” and was providing only a “rough estimate,” and found 

that “Respondent did not know the exact width of the CAT.” Chairman Attwood agrees with the 

judge and would conclude that, in addition to Central Florida’s failures—discussed below—

regarding the berm’s load-bearing capacity, Central Florida failed to satisfy its burden to 

ascertain the clearance by determining the CAT’s width. See StanBest, 11 BNA OSHC at 1226 

(noting that “party claiming the benefit of an exception has the burden of proving that its claim 

comes within the exception”). With respect to the stipulated width, Chairman Attwood accepts 

the parties’ agreed-upon measurement. However, in her view, the parties’ after-the-fact 

stipulation as to the CAT’s width has no bearing on the question whether, before driving the 

CAT on the berm, Villa measured the CAT in order to determine its width. Indeed, Central 

Florida raised no objection when the Secretary’s counsel asked Villa whether he had measured 

the CAT.
10 

to Central Florida—that he measured the berm at each set of stakes and found the narrowest set 

was 12 feet wide—and even if we were to credit Villa with having known the CAT’s actual 

width of 9.5 feet, Villa overestimated the berm’s narrowest point by 1 foot 8 inches and thus 

believed there were 15 inches of clearance per side when, in fact, there were only 5 inches per 

side. In short, Villa thought there was at least three times the amount of clearance than was 

actually present. Holman, relying on Villa’s information, took no measurements himself. In

sum, the CAT’s width allowed for only 5 inches of clearance on either side of the berm, which

was approximately 8 feet above ground level on one side and bordered a 21- to 60-foot deep 

pond on the other. Based on the record, we find that Central Florida failed to determine the 

clearance on either side of the CAT between it and the berm’s edges. 

Load-bearing capacity 

Central Florida next argues that, “[h]aving observed the conditions at the project site, 

knowing the berm had been trammed by heavy machinery, and having seen a larger backhoe go 

across the berms,” the company “had no issues with the weight[-]bearing capacity of the berm or 

the weight of the CAT.” We find, however, that Central Florida lacked critical information when 

it concluded that the berm had the capacity to support the weight of the CAT. 

Villa believed that the berm was sufficiently strong, but he did not know the CAT’s 

weight when it was loaded in accordance with his instructions (2/3 to 3/4 full), or what weight 

would be too heavy for the berm to accommodate. He also mistakenly relied on Central 

Florida’s experience from previous work on a different berm at the same facility to determine 

that the berm in question had the capacity to support the CAT. Specifically, Villa relied on his 

observations a few days before the accident when Central Florida used a CAT to build a berm 

 

Commissioner MacDougall notes that the Commission is to give preclusive effect to the parties’ 

stipulation as to the width of the CAT; thus, Central Florida may have deemed it unnecessary to 

address or clarify Villa’s testimony on this issue, and in her view no inference should be drawn 

from it. Stipulations of fact bind the court and parties. This is their very purpose. See Christian 

Legal Soc. Chapter of the University of California, Hastings College of Law v. Martinez, 561 

U.S. 661, 677-8 (2010) (“[F]actual stipulations are ‘formal concessions . . . that have the effect of 

withdrawing a fact from issue and dispensing wholly with the need for proof of the fact. Thus, a 

judicial admission . . . is conclusive in the case.’ ”); U.S. ex rel. Miller v. Bill Harbert Int’l. 

Constr., Inc., 608 F.3d 871, 898 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (“Once a stipulation of fact is made, the one 

party need offer no evidence to prove it and the other is not allowed to disprove it.”). See also 9 

Wigmore on Evidence § 2590 (Chadbourn rev. 1981) (discussing “vital feature” of stipulations). 
11 

from scratch elsewhere at the worksite “with no problems at all.” He believed that the two berms 

were “basically the same,” with no significant difference in width or soil composition. However, 

Central Florida’s contract for the other berm required it to perform compaction tests after every 

vertical foot of fill was deposited to ensure that the fill was “compacted and wo[uld not] settle.” 

In contrast, Central Florida did not build the berm at issue here and did not know if such tests 

had been conducted during its construction. Consequently, Villa’s judgment at the outset 

regarding the berm’s ability to support the CAT was based on his speculation that it was 

“basically the same” as the other berm. 

Holman also believed that the berm was sufficiently strong, but his assessment was based 

on having seen that “it had been trammed with heavy machinery.” At the same time, he 

acknowledged that he did not know whether moving multiple pieces of heavy equipment on the 

berm would have any negative effect on the berm’s stability; yet he took no steps to find out if 

the berm’s load-bearing capacity had been compromised. Under these circumstances, we find 

that Central Florida failed to obtain information needed to assess whether the berm was able to 

support the weight of the CAT. 

In sum, we find that Central Florida failed to obtain the information necessary to 

determine that the berm was “constructed and maintained to accommodate safely the movement 

of the [CAT].” Cf. Greenleaf Motors Express, Inc., 21 BNA OSHC 1872, 1875 (No. 03-1305, 

2007), aff’d, 262 F. App’x 716 (6th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (finding employer failed to make 

reasonable inquiries regarding the substances that were introduced into its tankers); Concrete 

Constr., Co., 12 BNA OSHC 1174, 1178 (No. 82-1210, 1985), aff’d, 986 F.2d 1164 (6th Cir. 

1986) (finding that with a minimum of foresight and effort, employer could have discovered that 

its rigging arrangement and pipe-laying procedure left no room in which to maneuver the 

backhoe arm even assuming the accuracy of its own estimate of the height of the lines, the height 

reached by the backhoe arm, and its ability to maneuver the machine precisely within very 

narrow limits); Bland Constr. Co., 15 BNA OSHC 1031, 1036 (No. 87-992, 1991) (holding that 

whatever an industry’s practice is, its members “are required to take into account all available, 

factual information” relating to whether violative conditions “exist, or reasonably could exist, 

where work is being performed”). Accordingly, we affirm the judge’s finding that Central 

Florida failed to comply with § 1926.602(a)(3)(i). 
12 

C. Knowledge

To establish knowledge, the Secretary must prove that the employer knew or, with the 

exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known of the conditions constituting the violation. 

Jacobs Field Servs. N. Am., 25 BNA OSHC 1216, 1218 (No. 10-2659, 2015). The judge found 

that Central Florida had both actual and constructive knowledge through foreman Villa. On 

review, Central Florida argues that the Secretary failed to establish knowledge because he did 

not demonstrate that the company failed to comply with “industry standard or custom.” In 

response, the Secretary argues that Central Florida had both actual and constructive knowledge 

that operating the CAT on the berm posed a hazard and therefore, the judge “correctly found that 

‘a reasonable person familiar with the circumstances of the industry would have recognized that 

driving the CAT along the berm constituted a hazard.’ ” To satisfy his burden, the Secretary 

must show knowledge of the conditions that form the basis of the alleged violation; not whether 

the employer had knowledge that the conditions constituted a hazard. Id.; Contour Erection & 

Siding Sys., Inc., 22 BNA OSHC 1072, 1073 (No. 06-0792, 2007). We find the evidence here 

demonstrates that Central Florida’s supervisors had actual knowledge of the violative conditions. 

The conditions that are the basis of the alleged violation are the failure to ascertain (1) the 

clearance between the CAT and the edges of the berm, and (2) the berm’s load-bearing capacity 

relative to the CAT’s weight. The berm in question was constructed of earthen material with an 

exposed edge above the adjacent retention pond, which posed a drowning risk. At certain 

locations on the berm, there were as few as 5 inches of clearance between the CAT and the drop

down into the 21- to 60-foot-deep retention pond. In addition, Villa’s visual inspection by 

walking the berm to check for any holes did not provide any meaningful information about the 

soil composition and whether the berm could withstand a vehicle with the size and weight of the 

CAT operating close to its edge. As discussed above, Villa acknowledged that he knew neither 

the CAT’s unloaded or fully-loaded weight, the CAT’s weight when loaded according to his 

instructions, nor what weight would be too heavy for the berm to accommodate. Likewise, 

Holman acknowledged that he did not know whether use of heavy equipment on a berm 

diminishes its load-bearing capacity. Under these circumstances, we have little difficulty 

concluding that Central Florida knew that it failed to obtain the information necessary to 

determine whether the berm could safely accommodate the CAT. 
13 

In a decision issued subsequent to the judge’s decision in this case, the Eleventh Circuit 

addressed the Secretary’s burden of proving knowledge in circumstances in which he seeks to 

establish that an employer had knowledge of a violation through the misconduct of a supervisor. 

See ComTran Group, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 722 F.3d 1304, 1316 (11th Cir. 2013). In 

ComTran, the court held that “ ‘it is reasonable to charge the employer with the supervisor’s 

knowledge actual or constructive of noncomplying conduct of a subordinate’ ” because he acts 

on the employer’s behalf as its agent, but where the Secretary seeks to establish an employer’s 

knowledge based on a supervisor’s own misconduct, he “must do more than merely point to the 

misconduct itself.” ComTran, 722 F.3d at 1317 (quoting Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. 

Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 623 F.2d 155, 158 (10th Cir.1980)). According 

to the ComTran court, in such situations the employer is left unaware of the supervisor’s 

misconduct so it “would be fundamentally unfair” to impute the supervisor’s knowledge unless 

the Secretary met his prima facie burden by putting forth evidence independent of the 

misconduct. ComTran, 722 F.3d at 1317. The ComTran court’s rationale is, figuratively 

speaking, that “[t]he supervisor acts as the ‘eyes and ears’ of the absent employer” but that the 

employer is “blind and deaf” when the misconduct is the supervisor’s own. Id. We find the facts 

here distinguishable from those in ComTran.

In ComTran, the Secretary sought to impute the knowledge of a foreman’s own 

misconduct to his employer. There the foreman, while digging in a trench to find a utilities 

conduit, ended up enlarging it to the extent that the trench and spoil pile became noncompliant 

with OSHA’s trenching requirements. Id. at 1309 & fn.10, 11. There was no evidence that any 

other company official knew of the conditions at issue; just prior to the foreman’s entry, the 

company’s project manager had inspected the site, but at that point the excavation was in 

compliance with OSHA requirements.12 Id. at 1309. 

 

12 Chair Attwood also notes that the supervisor at issue in ComTran represented company 

management at its lowest level, and that cases in other circuits requiring evidence showing the 

foreseeability of a supervisor’s misconduct similarly involve the same type of first-level 

supervisor. See Dana Container, 25 BNA OSHC 1776, 1789-90 n.32 (Docket No. 09-1184, 

2015) (and cases cited therein), appeal docketed, No. 16-1087 (7th Cir. Jan. 14, 2016). 

Commissioner MacDougall notes that ComTran contains no discussion regarding the type of 

supervisor impacting the court’s analysis or holding, and she would find that any attempt to 

distinguish ComTran from the facts of this case on that basis is misplaced. 
14 

In contrast, the record here shows that Villa discussed the berm project with general 

superintendent Holman—described by Villa as “the superintendent over all the foremen”—who 

in turn conferred with Central Florida’s project manager, Themes, and they all agreed, in the 

words of Holman, “on how to perform the work and what equipment would be used,” which 

included the CAT.13 Holman was aware that they did not know if the use of heavy equipment 

diminished the berm’s load-bearing capacity. There is no dispute that the decision to drive the 

CAT along the surface of the berm was not made by Villa in isolation but rather was presented in 

advance to Holman. Three separate managers agreed to the method and equipment used to 

perform the work; thus, it cannot be said that there is unforeseeable supervisory misconduct. 

Unlike ComTran, where the foreman’s actions were unplanned, the work at issue here was 

planned and approved. See Id. at 1316. Accordingly, we find ComTran distinguishable, and 

conclude that Central Florida had actual knowledge. Therefore, we affirm the citation. 

II. Characterization and Penalty 

The judge characterized the violation as serious and assessed the Secretary’s proposed 

penalty of $4,900. On review, the parties do not challenge the characterization or penalty, and 

we find no reason to disturb the judge’s findings. E.g., KS Energy Servs., Inc., 22 BNA OSHC 

1261, 1268 n.11 (No. 06-1416, 2008) (affirming alleged characterization and assessing proposed 

penalty when characterization and penalty are not in dispute). Accordingly, we affirm the 

citation as serious and assess the $4,900 proposed penalty.

ORDER

 We affirm Serious Citation 1, Item 1, and assess a penalty of $4,900. 

SO ORDERED.

 /s/ 

 Cynthia L. Attwood 

 Chairman

 /s/ 

Heather L. MacDougall

Dated: July 26, 2016 Commissioner

 

13 The County required a written proposal for the work, including a breakdown of all labor and 

equipment.
United States of America

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1120 20th Street, N.W., Ninth Floor

Washington, DC 20036-3457

SECRETARY OF LABOR

Complainant

v. OSHRC DOCKET NO. 08-1656

CENTRAL FLORIDA EQUIPMENT RENTALS, INC,

Respondent

APPEARANCES: Melanie R. Paul, Esquire 

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor 

61 Forysth Street, Room 7T10 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303 

For the Complainant.

Vincent F. Vaccarella, P.A. 

Vincent F. Vaccarella, Esquire

Andrew S. Douglas, Esquire 

18851 NE 29 Avenue 

Harbor Centre-Suite 304 

Aventura, Florida 33180 

For the Respondent. 

BEFORE: Dennis L. Phillips

Administrative Law Judge 

DECISION AND ORDER

This proceeding is before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (“the

Commission”) pursuant to section 10(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 

U.S.C. § 651 et seq. (“the Act”). On July 23-24, 2008, the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (“OSHA”) conducted an inspection of the work site of Central Florida Equipment Rentals, Inc. (“Respondent” or “CFER”) in Homestead, Florida. The site was a man-made

berm where, on July 22, 2008, a wheel mounted Caterpillar Model 725 Articulating Truck

(“CAT”or “CAT 725") operator drowned after the truck fell into a retention pond located at the 

edge of the berm. As a result of the inspection, OSHA issued a citation to CFER for a serious 
2

violation of section 5(a)(2) of the Act alleging a violation of the standard at 29 C.F.R. § 

1926.602(a)(3)(i).1 The Secretary proposed a penalty of $4,900 for the violation. The citation

alleges that on or about July 22, 2008, “an employee was exposed to a drowning hazard while 

operating a Caterpillar Model 725, Articulating Truck on top of unstable soil of a berm at the 

edge of a retention pond.” Respondent contested the citation.2 The hearing in this matter was

held from September 29 through 30, 2009, in Miami, Florida and this matter is ready for

disposition. 

Respondent’s Post-Hearing Brief is Stricken as Untimely

Also before me is Respondent's Response to the Order to Show Cause why its posthearing brief should not be stricken for being untimely. The Court’s Notice of Hearing and

Scheduling Order dated December 11, 2008 ordered that “Post-trial briefs must be submitted no 

later than 33 days after the date of the hearing transcript.” At the conclusion of the trial in this 

case, the Court similarly instructed the parties that "Counsel will have up to 33 days from the 

1

The standard states:

§ 1926.602 Material handling equipment.

(a) Earthmoving equipment.

* * *

(3) Access roadways and grades. (i) No employer shall move or cause to be moved 

construction equipment or vehicles upon any access roadway or grade unless the access roadway

or grade is constructed and maintained to accommodate safely the movement of the equipment

and vehicles involved. 

2

In a footnote appearing on page 1 of Complainant’s post-hearing brief, the Secretary

asserts that OSHA received Respondent’s notice of contest more than 15 business days after 

Respondent received its citation and notice of penalty. OSHA issued the citation and notice of 

penalty on September 25, 2008. The Secretary asserts that Respondent received its citation on

September 26, 2008 and OSHA received Respondent’s notice of contest on October 21, 2008. 

The Secretary offered no evidence to support its assertion that Respondent received its citation 

and notice of penalty on September 26, 2008. The United States Postal Service Certified Mail

Receipt addressed to CFER in the Court’s possession shows that mail dated September 26, 2008 

was delivered to CFER and signed for by “C Feria” on September 29, 2008. Based on the 

information before it, the Court finds that CFER timely filed its notice of contest within 15 

business days. 
3

date of the official court transcript to file posthearing briefs,..." (Tr. 408).3 The official court

transcript was dated October 16, 2009. The parties’ simultaneous briefs were due on November 

18, 2009. The Secretary's brief was timely filed. Respondent's post-hearing brief was not filed 

until November 24, 2009. Respondent did not then, or before, file a motion for an extension of 

time or a motion setting forth good cause for delay as required by Commission Rule of Procedure 74(c), which states “Untimely briefs will not be accepted unless accompanied by a motion 

setting forth good cause for the delay.” 29 C.F.R. § 2200.74(c). 

In her Reply to Respondent’s Post-Hearing Brief, dated December 4, 2009, the Secretary 

essentially “moved to strike” Respondent’s post-hearing brief as untimely.4 The Secretary

alleged that, because her post-hearing brief was timely, she suffered prejudice because Respondent had the benefit of having her post-hearing brief for six days before filing its own.5 

Accordingly, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause giving Respondent 15 days to show 

cause why its post-hearing brief should not be rejected as untimely. 

In its Response to the Secretary’s Reply to Central Florida’s Post-Hearing Brief,

Memorandum Demonstrating Good Cause for the Filing Date of Respondent’s Post-Hearing

Brief, and Alternative Motion for Extension of Time to File Post-Hearing Brief dated December

14, 2009 (“Response to Show Cause Order”), Respondent attests that it did not receive an 

electronic copy of the official court transcript until October 21, 2009 and that the "final" paper 

copy was not received until October 22, 2009.6 Respondent says that it “relied upon the delivery 

of the official transcript on October 22, 2009 as the date of certification of the official transcript 

and calculated all deadlines based thereon.” The Court’s directives regarding when post-hearing

3

Transcript cites are cited as Tr., followed by the page number. Exhibits are cited as C- 

(number) for the Secretary and R-(number) for the employer. The Secretary’s brief is cited as

SOL Brief at (page).

4

The Court views Complainant’s Reply to Respondent’s Post-Hearing Brief as including 

a Motion to Strike Respondent’s post-hearing brief.

5

The Court finds that the Secretary was prejudiced to the extent that Respondent had six 

additional days to prepare its brief.

6

This date coincides with the date that the Court received its paper copy of the transcript.
4

briefs were due to be filed did not refer to the date of the transcript’s delivery or receipt. The 

Court’s orders used the date of the official court transcript as the benchmark from which the 

post-hearing brief due date was measured. The Court’s directives were clear. Respondent’s 

attempt to allude to confusion on its part is self-serving and rejected. The Reporter's Certification in the transcript is dated October 16, 2009. (Tr. 247, 410). CFER’s Response to Show 

Cause Order made no persuasive argument to explain why it did not either file its post-hearing

brief within 33 days of October 16, 2009 or request an extension of time before December 14, 

Because of the possibility that Respondent’s copy of the transcript contained a date other than 

October 16, 2009, on January 20, 2010 the Court ordered Respondent to submit the signed and 

dated copy of the Reporter’s Certificate of its transcript. Respondent timely complied with the 

Court’s order. As with the copy received by both the Court and the Secretary, Respondent’s 

copy was dated October 16, 2009. 

Having failed to articulate any persuasive reason why its post-hearing brief was not 

timely filed despite being given the opportunity to do so, the Court concludes that Respondent 

has failed to Show Cause why its post-hearing brief should not be stricken. Accordingly, the 

Secretary’s Motion to Strike Respondent’s Brief is GRANTED.8

The Court also notes that in Sections II and III of its Response to Show Cause Order, 

Respondent includes arguments responding to substantive portions of the Secretary's posthearing brief that bear no relationship to the Order to Show Cause. In essence, Respondent is 

attempting to piggyback a reply brief to its Response to Show Cause Order. Having stricken its 

post-hearing brief, it would be inappropriate to allow Respondent to submit a reply brief through

the “back door.” At the hearing, the Court directed that the "parties also have an additional ten 

calendar days thereafter [from the date of the post-hearing briefs] to file reply briefs if the parties

7

Respondent’s motion for an extension of time nunc pro tunc within which to file its

post-hearing brief contained within its Response to Show Cause Order is DENIED.

8

See Norvelle v. City of Hobart, 862 P.2d 82 (Okl. App. 1993)(appellate brief filed four 

days late stricken.); T. Smith & Son, Inc., 1974 WL 4337, at *14 (No. 2240, 1974)(brief dates 

within discretion of the judge.), Westway Motor Freight, Inc. et al., 1973 WL 4017, at *6 (Nos. 

849 through 851 (consolidated), 1973)(striking post-hearing briefs “tend more to penalize the 

judge than the delinquent party.”). 
so desire." (Tr. 408). Ten calender days from the due date of its post-hearing brief was November 28, 2009. However, its Response to the Show Cause Order was not filed until December 14, 

2009, more than two weeks after the date for filing a reply brief had passed. Accordingly, any 

representations or arguments in Sections II and III of Respondent's Response to Show Cause 

Order will not be addressed in this decision. Alaska Trawl Fisheries Inc.,15 BNA OSHC 1699, 

1701, n.4 (Nos. 89-1017, 89-1192, 1992)(consolidated). 

In striking its post-hearing brief and not considering any arguments responding to 

substantive portions of the Secretary’s post-hearing brief contained within its Response to Order 

to Show Cause, the Court notes that Respondent’s defenses to the citation were made clear in its

pleadings, Supplemental Joint Pre-Hearing Statement, dated July 15, 2009 (“SJHS”), and at the 

hearing. Therefore, the decision in this case would not have been altered by acceptance of

Respondent’s Post Hearing brief or consideration of substantive arguments submitted by

Respondent in its Response to Show Cause Order.

Background

On May 8, 2008, Respondent9 entered into a subcontract no. HPA 756-S3 (“subcontract”) with General Contractor Harry Pepper & Associates, Inc. (“Harry Pepper”) to perform 

work required for the South District Wastewater Treatment Plant HLD Upgrade to 285 MGD,

Temporary Office Facilities Contract No. S-825 (“Contract S-825", “project” or “job”). The 

work under the subcontract was to be performed at the Miami-Dade County Water and Sewer

waste water treatment facility at 23300 Southwest 97th Avenue, Homestead, Florida. (Tr. 42, 

89-91, 139, 177-178; G-23). The subcontract called for Respondent to be paid $2,350,000 for 

work satisfactorily performed. Pursuant to the subcontract, Respondent represented that it was

responsible for investigating “the nature, locality, and site of the Work and the conditions,

including subsurface and latent physical conditions at the site, under which the Work is to be 

performed. The Subcontractor enters into this subcontract on the basis of his own investigation

and evaluation of all such matters and not in reliance upon any other opinions or representations.” The subcontract also stated that Respondent “shall be responsible for and will prepare for 

9

CFER is a company that performs road construction or repair, excavations, trenching,

and equipment rentals. (Answer (“Ans.”), ¶ III; Tr. 117). 

5 
6

performance of all Subcontractor’s Work, including without limitation thereto, the submission of 

shop drawings, samples, test, determination of all field dimensions associated or interfaced with

its Work, determination of labor requirements, and the ordering of all equipment and materials as

required to meet the CPM Schedule and the plans and specifications.”10 (Tr. 140, 155, 157; G23, pp. 3-4). The subcontract further required Respondent to “take all reasonable safety

precautions in the execution of its work and to comply with all federal safety regulations 

(including OSHA), . . . .” The subcontract also called for Respondent to “provide all necessary

engineering, technical support, and field coordination as required for the proper execution of this 

agreement.” (G-23, pp. 3-6, 13). 

On June 24, 2008, the Miami-Dade County Water and Sewer Department (“County” or 

“Owner”) issued a Request for Proposal No. 12 (“RFP”) under Contract S-825 to Harry Pepper 

to provide labor and equipment to raise “the north berm of Ponds 1, 2 and 3 to an elevation of 

approximately 9.0.”11 The County required the proposal to include a breakdown of all labor and 

equipment. The work was to be performed on a time and material basis. (SJHS Nos. 1, 4; G24). The berms were to be raised approximately six inches. (SJHS Nos. 1, 4; Tr. 178; G-24). To 

accomplish the job, Respondent’s foreman, John Villa (“foreman” or “site supervisor”), decided

that he would use a CAT to drive along the top of the berm and dump the fill.12 (SJHS No. 9; Tr. 

180-81). The CAT has an empty weight of approximately 49,075 pounds (“lbs.”) and a fully 

loaded maximum weight capacity of 101,000 lbs. (SJHS Nos. 13-14; Tr. 124). Respondent's

superintendent, Marty Holeman, agreed with the foreman's choice of equipment. (SJHS No. 9; 

Tr. 318). On the morning of July 22, 2008, Foreman Villa walked along the berms to “see” that

there were no holes and that the ground was fairly level. (SJHS No. 16; Tr. 183-84). 

10The subcontract also called for Respondent to be responsible for “All testing required

for the Subcontractor’s work that is not provided or paid for by the Owner/Engineer.” (G-23, p. 

16). The subcontract identified Hazen & Sawyer Environmental Engineer & Scientists as the

“Engineers”. (G-23, p. 2). 

11The RFP included a diagram that showed that the existing elevation of Pond 2's berm

ranged at or above 8.2 feet. (SJHS No. 3; G-24, p.3). 

12The CAT had not been used on the North Beam, Pond 2 prior to July 22, 2008. (SJHS 

No. 15; G-26, p. 4; Respondent’s Answer to Interrogatory No. 5).
7

According to a decision by Respondent’s site supervisor, after the CAT unloaded the fill 

on top of the berm, a bulldozer would drive over the berm to spread the fill while the CAT

circled around the retention pond to bring the next load. (Tr. 46, 179-82). This would continue 

until the berms were raised to the required level. (Tr. 181). Finally, a roller would go over the 

berm to compact the soil. (SJHS No. 17; Tr. 181). 

Neither the County nor Harry Pepper made any representations to Respondent regarding 

the condition of the berms, the composition of the soil, or whether the berm could support the 

weight of the CAT. (Tr. 94, 197, 322-23). CFER never asked anyone from either the County or 

Harry Pepper if they knew the carrying capacity of the berm or whether it was capable of 

supporting the weight of the CAT. (Tr. 94, 191, 199). Respondent assumed that the berm was

capable of supporting the fully loaded CAT because of its prior experience working around the 

area of the berm. (Tr. 199).

On the afternoon of July 22, 2008, the north berm at pond no. 2 gave way while Respondent’s employee, Tod William LaRoche, age 42, was operating the CAT on the berm. (SJHS

Nos. 25-26; Tr. 35, 96; R-7, p. 1, G-25). There was very little clearance on either side of the

CAT atop the berm. (Tr. 76). The berm gave way and the CAT fell into the retention pond 

which was 20-60 feet deep, drowning Mr. LaRoche. (SJHS Nos. 5, 28; Tr. 35, 49, 201). There 

were no eye witnesses to the accident. (Tr. 70). Detective Nichols of the Miami-Dade Police

Department Traffic Homicide Division was the lead detective at the scene. (Tr. 35). He

concluded that the CAT fell into the pond while still carrying a load of fill. (Tr. 77). He also 

concluded that the accident occurred when the berm gave way under the weight of the CAT. (Tr. 

45-47, 49, 65).

Stipulated Facts

The parties represented and stipulated to the following facts:

1. On July 22, 2008, employees working for Central Florida Equipment Rentals, Inc.

were working at the Miami-Dade County Water Treatment Facility located at 23300 SW 97th 

Avenue, Cutler Bay, Florida for the purpose of raising the berm around the water retention ponds 

by 6 inches.

2. The berm is owned by Miami-Dade County. 

3. The berm around the retention ponds ranged from approximately 7.4- 9.6 feet high. 
8

4. Respondent was a subcontractor hired by the General Contractor, Harry Pepper &

Associates to raise the level of the berm by about 6 inches.

5. Tod LaRoche, an equipment operator, employed by Respondent, died from drowning 

and blunt force trauma when the CAT 725 he was operating fell into the water, trapping Mr. La

Roche.

6. On the day of the accident, John Villa worked as a Foreman for Respondent. Mr. Villa 

supervised four employees, including Tod LaRoche, at the job site.

7. As foreman, Mr. Villa is responsible for the safety practices at the job site.

8. Mr. Villa discussed the job with his supervisor, the Superintendent, Martin Holeman.

9. Mr. Villa made the decision to use the CAT 725 on the berm to perform the job and 

Mr. Holeman agreed.

10. Mr. Holeman also discussed the job and how to perform the work with Project

Manager Marcus Themes, and a consensus was reached on how to perform the work and what 

equipment would be used, including the CAT 725 Articulating Dump Truck. 

11. Stakes were placed 1 foot from the edge of the berm by Respondents' surveyors to

indicate to the employees how much fill to add to the berm.

12. The CAT 725 is 9.5 feet from wheel to wheel.

13. The CAT 725 weighs approximately 49,075 lbs. without any load. 

14. According the CAT 725 equipment specifications, the CAT 725 has a maximum

weight capacity of 101,082 1bs. when fully loaded. 

15. Prior to July 22, 2008, Respondent had not used the CAT 725 on the berm of Pond 2 

where the accident occurred.

16. On the morning of the accident, Mr. Villa walked along the berm to see if there were

any holes in the soil and to ensure its composition. 

17. On the morning of the accident, Mr. Villa instructed his employees to go one at a 

time in succession with the heavy equipment on the berm: First, the CAT 725 driven by Mr. La 

Roche would unload the material; Second, the bulldozer operated by Santiago Salazar would

level the material; Third, an earth roller compactor operated by Saturnino Polon would 

compact the soil.
9

18. Mr. Villa advised the employees to be careful on the berm because the level of the 

berm was not the same in every spot. 

19. Tod LaRoche was an experienced heavy equipment operator and had worked for 

Respondent for many years.

20. Mr. Villa told the employees not to fill the CAT 725 to capacity.

21. Respondent did not weigh each load. 

22. Respondent's employees followed the instructions of Mr. Villa. Prior to the accident, 

the employees had made one trip of dumping and spreading the soil using the truck and 

bulldozer on Pond 2. 

23. Mr. Villa was not present at the worksite when the accident occurred.

24. No one witnessed the berm collapse; employees only saw the CAT 725 after it was in

the water.

25. Mr. LaRoche was operating the CAT 725, which was the only equipment on the berm 

at the time it gave way and the CAT 725 fell into the pond. 

26. The accident occurred at approximately 1:30 P.M. on July 22, 2008. 

27. At the time of the accident, the weather was sunny and clear.

28. The CAT 725 was submerged under water until police rescue was able to recover the 

truck on July 23, 2008. 

29. The depth of the retention ponds range from 21 feet at the edges to 50 - 60 feet in the 

middle.

30. The Secretary cited Respondent alleging a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.602(a)(3)(i), 

which stated that "The employer moved or caused to be moved construction equipment or 

vehicles upon access roadways or grades that were not constructed to accommodate safely the

movement of the equipment and vehicles involved.” 

(SJHS, pp. 12-14). 

The Secretary’s Burden of Proof

To establish a violation of an OSHA standard, the Secretary must establish that: (1) the

standard applies to the facts; (2) the employer failed to comply with the terms of that standard; 

(3) employees had access to the hazard covered by the standard, and (4) the employer’s actual or

constructive knowledge of the violation (i.e., the employer either knew or, with the exercise of
10

reasonable diligence could have known, of the violative conditions). Atlantic Battery Co., 16 

BNA OSHC 2131, 2138 (No. 90-1747, 1994). 

The relevant testimony as to the four elements is set out below. 

The Relevant Testimony

1. Detective Brett Nichols

At the time of the accident, Brett Nichols was a detective in the Miami-Dade Police

Department Traffic Homicide Division.13 In his seven years in traffic homicide, he conducted 

approximately 300 investigations involving fatalities, including 5-6 investigations that involved 

vehicle accidents on worksites. (Tr. 34). During the course of his traffic fatality investigations,

he looked for causation of the accident and who was at fault. On the afternoon of July 22, 2008, 

Detective Nichols received a call that a commercial vehicle had fallen into a retention pond at 

the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Treatment Facility.14 (Tr. 34-35). When he arrived at the site,

there were divers, fire rescue, and uniformed police already at the scene.15 (Tr. 35). He was the 

lead investigator for the case. Detectives Ralph Hernandez, Zubair Khan and Bertrand, along 

with Sergeant Greenwall, supported Detective Nichols at the accident scene. Miami-Dade police 

investigators A. Utset and H. McPherson also prepared a FTCR for the accident. While at the

accident scene, Detective Nichols coordinated with the divers and a tow truck company to

remove the CAT and Mr. LaRoche from the water. Mr. LaRoche was trapped inside the driver’s 

cab portion of the CAT and under water. Three large tow trucks were hooked up to the CAT to 

remove it from the water. A fence along the north side of the berm was removed to allow access

for the tow truck cables. Divers took the cables and attached them to the CAT under water. The 

CAT, with Mr. LaRoche still seated inside the driver’s cab, was removed from the water at about

4:30 a.m., July 23, 2008. (Tr. 39-40, 57-58; G-13-14, 16). Detective Nichols inspected the CAT

13Detective Nichols has since retired. (Tr. 31-32, 61). 

14The Florida Traffic Crash Report (“FTCR”), dated July 22, 2008, indicated that the 

CAT was traveling an estimated 5 miles per hour (“mph”). (R-7, pp.1, 3). 

15The FTCR indicated that the accident occurred at 1:35 p.m., July 22, 2008. (R-7, p.1). 
11

after it was recovered from the retention pond. He did not observe any obvious mechanical or 

electrical problems with the CAT.16 (Tr. 41).

The FTCR stated that:

VEHICLE 1 [CAT] WAS TRAVELING WEST BOUND ON A DIRT ROAD

ON THE NORTHSIDE [SIC] OF THE LAKE, WHEN THE DIRT GAVE WAY

CAUSING VEHICLE 1 TO FALL INTO THE LAKE. FIRE RESCUE

RESPONDED AND WAS UNSUCCESSFUL IN THEIR ATTEMPTS TO

REMOVE THE DRIVER. TRAFFIC HOMICIDE #1722 NICHOLS

RESPONDED AND TOOK OVER SCENE.

(R-7, p.3). The FTCR’s diagram showed the CAT was proceeding due west between a fence and

a lake when it then entered the lake at a relatively slight angle veering a bit in a south western

direction. (R-7, p.4). The FTCR indicated that the CAT driver had no known physical defects, 

was not drinking or using drugs, and was wearing a seat belt/shoulder harness at the time of the 

accident. (R-7, p. 1). The FTCR reported that “No Improper Driver/Action” contributed to the 

cause of the accident. It reported that the CAT driver’s vision was not obscured. The FTCR 

further reported that the “ROAD CONDITIONS” at the time of the crash were “Road under

Repair/Construction,” the “TRAFFICWAY CHARACTER” was “Straight - Upgrade/ Downgrade” and “Type Shoulder” was unpaved. (R-7, p. 2). 

At Detective Nichol’s direction, Detective Hernandez measured the width of the berm 

where it gave way between ten feet, four inches and fourteen feet, two inches, and the tread 

width of the CAT at 9.4 feet. (Tr. 37, 76).17 This, he testified, left very little clearance on either

side of the vehicle. (Tr. 76). The steepness of the berm was between eight and nine feet.18 He

testified that the berm was made of rock and gravel and was fairly level. (Tr. 50-51). Detective 

16The FTCR reported “No Defects” in the CAT. Due to the CAT being submerged in

water, the estimated vehicle damage was reported by the police to be $300,000. (Tr. 7, p. 1-2).

17Detective Nichols further testified that the berm extended in an east-west direction, just 

south of Southwest 230nd Street. He recalled that it was about 150 feet from the east edge of the 

beam to the area where the beam was damaged. The damaged beam area was 20 feet long and

ran along the north perimeter of the retention pond. (Tr. 39-40, 50; C-5).

18Detective Nichols testified that the beam was so steep that divers needed to use a ladder 

to get into and out of the water. (Tr. 56; G-5, G-14). 
Nichols testified that several photographic exhibits depicted the area where the berm collapsed 

beneath the CAT. (Tr. 50-54; G-5 through G-13).19 Photograph G-9 depicts a close-up of the 

area where the beam collapsed and shows tire marks in the dirt road leading up to the collapsed 

area. Detective Nichols testified that these prints were likely from the CAT. (Tr. 52-53, 77; G9).20 There were no witnesses to the accident. (Tr. 70). Detective Nichols concluded that the 

accident occurred when, while traveling on the top of the berm, a portion of the berm gave way

causing the CAT to tumble into the retention pond. (Tr. 47, 65, 76). It was the Detective’s

opinion that the damage to the berm was caused by the CAT going into the water. (Tr. 74; G-5 

through 14). The CAT was found in the water right below the damaged berm section. (Tr. 75; 

G-5 through G-14). It was his opinion that the berm gave way because the weight of the vehicle

was too great for the unsupported berm that was constructed of rock and fill. (Tr. 49). Detective 

Nichols believed that the CAT was still loaded with fill when the CAT fell into the water. (Tr.

77). It was sunny and hot on July 22, 2008 and the weather had no effect on the accident. (Tr. 

40). 

Detective Nichols testified that he interviewed several people at the accident scene and 

over the course of the next few days. (Tr. 42). He interviewed Santiago Salazar, CFER’s 

bulldozer operator, who was working with Mr. La Roche at the berm on July 22, 2008. Mr.

Salazar told Detective Nichols that he believed that the CAT was loaded with fill when the CAT 

entered the pond. (Tr. 77-78; R-2, p.2). He also interviewed Mr. Villa, who told him that it was

his decision to have the CAT drive and deliver its load on top of the berm. (Tr. 45-46, 69). 

2. John Chorlog

John Chorlog is the Associate Director for Priority Capital Projects for the Dade County 

Water and Sewer Department. (Tr. 80). According to Mr. Chorlog, because the capacity of the

retention ponds 1 through 3 was going to be increased, it was necessary to raise the elevation of

19Detective Khan took photographs G-5 through G-14 at the accident scene during the 

day on July 22, 2008 and Detective Nichols took photographs G-15 through G-19 during the 

night on July 22-23, 2008. (Tr. 63-64). 

20The Court finds that it is more probably than not that the tire print shown on Photograph 

G-8, at A, was made from the CAT before it fell into the water.

12 
the north berms of the ponds to about 9 feet.21 (Tr. 90-91; G-24, G-25). To accomplish this task,

the County contracted with its prime contractor, Harry Pepper, who, in turn, subcontracted the 

job to CFER. (Tr. 91). 

Mr. Chorlog testified that the County does not supervise the day to day activities of the

subcontractors on its worksites. (Tr. 82). Mr. Chorlog testified that the County never made a 

representation to Respondent about the physical condition and composition of the berm.

Moreover, nobody from CFER ever asked the County about the condition of the berm or 

inquired whether any tests were conducted on the soil. (Tr. 94-95). He further testified that 

nobody from the County ever talked to Respondent about how to raise the berms, or what 

equipment to use on them.22 (Tr. 94-95). 

When he heard about the accident, Mr. Chorlog went to the site. He gave the following

testimony concerning CFER’s use of the CAT on the north berm:

Q. What was your reaction to Central Florida’s use of that piece of equipment [CAT] on

the berm?

A. Well I; I couldn’t believe that they would have put that large dump truck out there on 

the berm.

Q. Why?

A. Because of the size of the truck, the wheel pressure that would have been imposed on 

the berm, the width of the truck wheels compared to the width of the berm. The wheels

21The water treatment facility property contained fifteen to twenty water retention ponds 

all around the property that control the storm water. (G-25; Tr. 86). The ponds were created in 

the late 1970's to provide lime rock to build the wastewater treatment plant. The ponds are now 

used for storm water control and as a water impoundment site for dewatering that needed to

occur because of new construction at the plant. (Tr. 86, 90, 104). The deepest depth of Pond 2 

where the accident occurred was fifty to sixty feet. (Tr. 132).

22Mr. Chorlog testified that the County did not expect work on raising the north berms to

begin until the County received information about how the job was to be performed, including a 

breakdown of labor and equipment to be used at the site. Although the County never received

this information, CFER began work on raising the berm without the prime or subcontractor first

receiving any direction from the County. Mr. Chorlog testified that the County did not know 

CFER was working on the north berms before learning of the accident on July 22, 2008. (Tr. 92- 

94, 102, 106). 

13 
of the truck tracks - - I mean it appeared that the wheels of the truck tracked very close to

the very edge of the berm. The berm was very steep. It just didn’t seem reasonable to

me to put such a large vehicle out there on that berm.

(Tr. 96).

Mr. Chorlog further testified that the job was completed by another contractor who 

dumped the fill at the ends of the berm and pushed the fill out onto the berm using a small

bulldozer. (Tr. 97-100; G-7, G-11, G-25). He acknowledged that the purpose of the berms was

to retain water in the ponds. He also testified that “there is no vehicle traffic on these berms.” 

(Tr. 104). 

3. Miguel Leorza

Miguel Leorza has been an OSHA Compliance Officer (CO) for five years.23 Over that

period, he has conducted approximately 130 inspections, of which approximately 90% involved 

construction sites. (Tr. 111). He has investigated about 30 fatalities. (Tr. 111). Three inspections involved accidents or fatalities that did not result in a citation. (Tr. 112). 

CO Leorza visited the accident site at 11:30 a.m., July 23, 2008, again on July 24, 2008, 

and another time thereafter. (Tr. 115, 142). He took photographs of the accident site on July 23, 

2008. (Tr. 119-35; G-1 through G-4). Mr. Leorza testified that the berm consisted of a sandy, 

gravel material that had been brought to the site and put into place. (Tr. 121). He measured the 

height of the berm to be about seven feet above the retention pond, and the width of the berm 

was 12.4 feet at the point just before where the ground had been disturbed due to the accident. 

(Tr. 121-25; G-2). He also determined the width of the CAT, from the outer edge of the wheel

on one side, to the outer edge of the wheel on the other side, to be 9.5 feet. This left a clearance

of approximately 1.5 feet on each side of the truck. (Tr. 125, 166). The gross weight of the truck

when empty was 49,075 lbs. and 101,000 lbs. fully loaded. (Tr. 124). 

23Prior to OSHA, CO Leorza retired from the United States Navy as a Lieutenant 

Commander, Environmental Health Officer, after serving 22 years. (Tr. 109-10). 

14 
It was Mr. Leorza’s understanding that this was the first time Respondent used this 

equipment on the berm. (Tr. 126; G-26, p.4).24 He testified that he considered the north berm of

Pond 2 to be an access road or grade because it was being used as a pathway to get from one 

point to the other on the berm. (Tr. 130). The CO further testified that there was very little

clearance on either side of the berm, and that the embankment leading to the water was fairly

steep. (Tr. 130). According to the CO, with the berm touching the pond, the water could filter 

into the berm impacting on its stability. (Tr. 131). Moreover, he considered the soil to be Class 

C, the most unstable soil classification, because it was composed of fill. (Tr. 131). 

The CO noted that, before work began, the foreman conducted a cursory site inspection

by walking on top of the berm, looking for holes, to make sure that it was in good shape. (Tr. 

126). In Mr. Leorza’s opinion, Respondent could have tested the berm to determine the load it 

could safely carry. He stated that a CFER representative had told him CFER had not performed

any such testing. (Tr. 172). CO Leorza testified that it was CFER’s responsibility to perform the 

testing. (Tr. 173-74). He regarded the foreman’s walk-over of the berm as insufficient and

thought someone should have thought about the possibility that the ground could give way. (Tr. 

132, 170). The CO testified that Respondent should have considered the clearance of the truck,

the proximity of the berm to water, the steepness of the embankment, and the hazards involved 

in falling into the water. (Tr. 132, 166). CO Leorza also testified that he considered the CAT to 

be both earthmoving equipment and an off-road truck. (Tr. 130). 

CO Leorza also testified that CFER was the controlling employer at the job site. He

stated that CFER created the hazard by operating the CAT on the north berm. He further

testified that CFER exposed its employees to the hazard by allowing its employees to operate the 

CAT atop the north berm. (Tr. 141-42). On cross-examination, Mr. Leorza testified that it was

CFER’s burden to determine the load capacity of the berm. (Tr. 173-74). 

4. John Villa

24CO Leorza testified that Respondent planned to raise the berms by driving the CAT, 

loaded with fill, atop the berms from east to west, dumping the fill atop the berm whereupon a 

bulldozer would level the fill, to be eventually followed by a compactor to compact the ground. 

The CAT was to circle around the pond and repeat the process. (Tr. 123-24). 

15 
John Villa was Respondent’s foreman at the site at the time of the accident. (Tr. 176-77). 

On July 22, 2008, he supervised the three to four workers on the job and told them what to do. 

(Tr. 177). He testified that CFER was hired to raise the level of the berms around the retention 

ponds by approximately six inches. (Tr. 178). Neither Harry Pepper nor the County instructed 

Respondent on how to do the job. CFER decided upon the method and means to do the job. Mr. 

Villa determined what equipment to use. He decided to use the CAT already at the job site. His

superintendent, Marty Holeman, agreed with his choice. (Tr. 178-79, 197). Mr. Villa testified

that CFER controlled the job site. CFER was the only company working on the north berm,

pond 2 when the accident occurred. (Tr. 196). CFER never discussed “safety” with regard to

working on top of the north berm with either Harry Pepper or the County. (Tr. 198). Mr. Villa

did not ask the County if the berm could accommodate the use of the CAT on it. He admitted

that nothing prevented him from asking the County about the weight bearing capacity of the

north berm. (Tr. 198-99). 

Mr. Villa explained the technique used to raise the berm. Foreman Villa decided that Mr.

“Ugaro” would load the CAT with fill.25 Mr. LaRoche would then drive the CAT along the 

berm, dump the fill on top of the berm, proceed on the berm in a westerly direction, make a 

circular path around the pond, and then repeat the activity. A third employee followed with a 

roller to compact and level the fill on top of the berm. Only one piece of equipment was to be on 

top of the berm at one time. (Tr. 180-182). According to Mr. Villa, the north berm, pond 2, was 

approximately 250 feet long, by 12-14 feet wide. (Tr. 182). On July 22, 2008, Mr. Villa watched 

Mr. La Roche complete a few passes around a pond on the first berm CFER worked on that day, 

and that pond was not pond 2. He then departed to go to another job site. He was not at pond 2 

when the accident occurred. (Tr. 195, 219-20).

Mr. Villa further testified that on one side of the berm was the retention pond and on the 

other side was a chain link fence. Grass was growing on the berm. (Tr. 183). On the day of the 

accident, Mr. Villa testified he walked two berms, including apparently the north berm at pond 2, 

to check for holes and to see that the ground was fairly level. (Tr. 183-84, 220-21). He did not 

25 “Herman Ogarro” is one of the four CFER employees identified on the “Burm [sic] 

Daily Safety Checklist” (“checklist”). (R-2, p.2). 

16 
know what the ground looked like beneath the grass on the berms. The grass did not indicate 

anything regarding the strength or stability of the berms, or the nature of the soil. (Tr. 184, 195). 

Mr. Villa did not test or evaluate the compactness of the material that composed the north berm 

and it never occurred to him to inquire about its compactness. (Tr. 191, 199).26 He assumed it

was stable because the condition of the material was similar to that in areas between the berms

and leading up to the berms.27 He also testified that it was his understanding that an underground 

crew installing pipes between two ponds had walked a “345 backhoe” across the berms to get

from one side of the lake to the other. (Tr. 221-22). He assumed the north berm could support 

the CAT and the fill CFER was loading into the CAT. (Tr. 199, 203). Mr. Villa did not consider 

the compactness of the berm when deciding how much fill to load into the CAT. (Tr. 190). 

He did not know the weight bearing capacity of the berm. (Tr. 191). He agreed that the

combined weight of the CAT and load is an important factor in determining whether a berm is

strong enough to hold a load. (Tr. 201). Prior to the accident, he did not know the combined 

weight of the CAT and the load; the carrying capacity of the berm; how steep the north berm 

was, the depth of the water in pond 2, and if there was any soil erosion on the side of the berm in

contact with the pond. (Tr. 192, 200-02). Mr. Villa testified that CFER was “very familiar” with

the materials at the job site. He did not consider the berm to be composed of Class C soil. (Tr.

199, 223). 

Mr. Villa stated that the CAT was only 8-9 feet wide, and expressed surprise that anyone

measured its wheel to wheel width at 9.5 feet. (Tr. 192). He agreed that the width of a truck is a

safety consideration when using it on a berm. (Tr. 202). He believed that he berm was wide

26CFER sometimes performed compaction tests on its jobs and worked with density

engineers. (Tr. 206). CFER had performed a job using the CAT on a twelve foot wide roadway

on the side of the berm, where it conducted compaction tests on a berm that it was constructing.

(Tr. 225-26). 

27Mr. Villa admitted that these areas were wider than the north berm and CFER’s 

equipment was further away from any edges. (Tr. 203). He also testified that the materials in the 

area between the berm where work was completed and the north berm where the accident

occurred was “very rocky.” (Tr. 221). 

17 
enough for the CAT. (Tr. 204, 219). He testified that had he used a lighter truck, the job would 

have taken longer. (Tr. 206). 

Mr. Villa agreed that CFER had a copy of the CAT’s Operation and Maintenance Manual

(“CAT Manual”). (Tr. 206; R-14). When operating the CAT, the CAT manual warned:

Do not get too close to the edge of cliffs, excavations and overhangs.

The CAT manual also warned:

1. Check for adequate clearance around the machine.

(Tr. 215-16; R-14, pp. 71-72). 

Mr. Villa testified that CFER did not read manuals for every piece of its equipment. (Tr. 216). 

Mr. Villa testified that he told employees to use a light load so that it would not spill off 

the berm and tear up the chain link fence. He estimated that the CAT was filled from between

2/3 and 3/4 of capacity. (Tr. 193) Mr. Villa testified that it was his understanding that approximately three loads were dumped on the berm before the accident. (Tr. 196). Mr. Villa conceded

that the job could be accomplished using equipment lighter than the CAT, which would require a 

little longer time. (Tr. 205). 

5. John Tomich

Respondent’s first witness was John Tomich who is the principal consultant for Northstar 

Consultants. (Tr. 257). Mr. Tomich spent 32 years as an OSHA supervisor and manager,

including 24 years as Area Director of the Albany, New York office. (Tr. 258). His specialty

was construction and maritime operations. (Tr. 259). His duties included determining the 

appropriate standard for various workplace conditions. (Tr. 261). The Court found Mr. Tomich

to be qualified as an expert under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”) on 

OSHA procedures and policies, with a focus on investigations, workplace and job site safety

with a focus on causes of accidents, and the application of the cited standard to the facts of the 

case. (Tr. 276-77). 

Mr. Tomich never visited the worksite where the accident occurred. (Tr. 272-73). He 

was also “not recently’ familiar with the CAT. (Tr. 297). He did not perform any outside 

research of the CAT. (Tr. 299). He also had no experience where the standard at issue was cited.

(Tr. 271). Mr. Tomich opined that the cited standard was not applicable to CFER’s conduct on 

July 22, 2008. In his view, the standard was more germane to road construction and large 

18 
excavations. (Tr. 281). He noted that this was “not a road way job.” It is a berm, “a configuration to hold back water.” (Tr. 280-81). He also found the standard to be vague. (Tr. 281). He 

characterized the standard as a performance standard and opined that the burden to prove a 

prima facie case was on the Secretary. (Tr. 282). He did not understand why the Secretary did

not ask for the assistance of an engineer to analyze the accident, determine the weight of the 

CAT and its load, test the berm and do sampling. (Tr. 183). 

Mr. Tomich considered this to be a multi-employer worksite and the County to be the 

employer who created the hazard. (Tr. 284). Furthermore, he considered Harry Pepper to be the

controlling employer because Harry Pepper set the terms of the contract. Finally, he considered 

Respondent to be the exposing contractor because its workers were actually exposed to any

hazard. (Tr. 285). In his view, the Secretary should have gone to the County and asked for 

specifications for the design requirements of the berms. (Tr. 285). 

Mr. Tomich also took the view that, in regards to safety, CFER was “an above average

employer.” He was impressed that the foreman walked along the berm before beginning work. 

He considered it evidence, along with industry practice, that the company’s safety and health

program was real and vital.28 (Tr. 288). In all, Mr. Tomich concluded that Respondent did not 

violate the cited standard.

On cross-examination, Mr. Tomich agreed that the evidence demonstrates that neither the 

County nor Harry Pepper made any representations to Respondent regarding the condition of the 

berm and that no other entity directed the work of CFER. (Tr. 291-93). He noted that there was 

no determination of the composition of the berm. He maintained that the OSHA investigation

was insufficient to meet the Secretary’s burden to make a prima facie case. (Tr. 293). Mr.

Tomich testified that 29 C.F.R. § 1926.602(a)(3)(ii), which states “Every emergency access ramp

and berm used by an employer shall be constructed to restrain and control runaway vehicles,” 

also did not apply to the case. He conceded that the provision at § 1926.602(a)(3)(ii) was a 

subpart to the cited section entitled “Access roadways and grades.” (Tr. 297). He agreed that 

there was not a lot of clearance on either side of the CAT’s wheels when driving along the berm.

28He testified that CFER had conducted a documented safety and health meeting on July 

22, 2008 and that “You don’t see that on most construction sites.” (Tr. 288). 

19 
(Tr. 302). He testified that it was reasonable for CFER to perform only a visual inspection of the 

berm to insure that the berm was strong enough to hold the CAT’s weight. Mr. Tomich also

expressed his view that common sense did not require the employer to conduct anything other 

than a visual inspection to ensure that the berm is strong enough to hold the weight of a truck the 

size of the CAT. (Tr. 303). The duty of an employer, he suggested, was to do what it feels is

prudent within its industry practice. Given the vagueness of the standard, and with the burden on 

the Secretary to prove its case, he was of the opinion that the visual inspection of the berm 

conducted by the foreman was sufficient and reasonable. (Tr. 305-06). 

6. Martin Holeman

Martin Holeman is CFER’s General Superintendent and has approximately 40 years

experience in heavy highway and underground construction. (Tr. 309-10). Mr. Holeman stated

that, on numerous occasions, CFER was hired to raise the height of berms around lakes and 

retention ponds. (Tr. 314). He testified that the company had frequently dug in the vicinity of 

the north berm to lay pipes and, therefore, was familiar with the composition of the soil (Tr. 310, 

314-15). He stated that the berm was of “Rocky stable soil.” (Tr. 321). He testified that Mr. La 

Roche had driven off-road dump trucks on a part time basis for the last year. (Tr. 316). He

testified that he had no concern about using the CAT on the berm due to any lack of clearance on

either side or the weight of the CAT loaded with fill. He noted that there were no turns and the 

vehicle had only to drive 250 feet straight across the berm. (Tr. 316-17). Moreover, he testified 

that machines, including a back hoe, crossing the berm prior to the CAT far exceeded the weight

of that vehicle.29 (Tr. 317). Mr. Holeman testified that it was not standard practice to conduct 

any sort of density tests or compaction testing prior to putting equipment on a job site. Indeed, 

he testified that such tests would have no relevancy to the decision regarding the type of truck to 

be placed on the berm. (Tr. 317). He stated that the compactness of the berm was not one of his 

concerns. (Tr. 321). 

29He testified that CFER had performed some digging and excavating around the berm 

area, but not on the berm itself. It was in an area between the canals that was wider than the

north berms. (Tr. 319). 

20 
21

Mr. Holeman testified that he agreed with Mr. Villa’s decision to use the CAT on the 

north berm. He was not aware of the weight capacity of the CAT. (Tr. 319). He did not check 

out the berm. Only John Villa checked the north berm. Mr. Holeman did not measure the north 

berm. He relied upon Mr. Villa’s representations as to the berm. (Tr. 324-25). He agreed that

CFER had used geotechnical engineers and compact tests to determine soil density at other sites

away from the north berm. (Tr. 321). He agreed that CFER did not ask the County what the 

weight capacity of the berm was or whether it was appropriate to use the CAT on the berm. (Tr.

321-22). He also agreed that the wheels of the backhoe that had previously driven across the 

north berm were close to the edge of the berm. (Tr. 318-20). Mr. Holeman agreed that the type

of soil is a factor when determining the safeness of a driving surface. (Tr. 323). He testified that

the presence of some grass atop the berm provided no meaning as to the softness or stability of

the berm’s soil. (Tr. 323-24). Mr. Holeman stated that he did not know the slope of the berm,

but opined that the slope of the berm was not relevant to its stability. (Tr. 324). He did agree that 

the consistency and sloping of soil are factors to be considered to ensure that there is no collapse. 

(Tr. 324). Mr. Holeman also had no idea whether the proximity of the north berm to the water

affected its stability. (Tr. 332). Mr. Holeman agreed that weight is a factor when determining

whether it is safe to put something on the berm. (Tr. 326). Respondent made no assessment

regarding the weight of the loaded CAT on the berm. (Tr. 326). Mr. Holeman did not know the 

weight capacity of the berm. (Tr. 327). He also testified that the job plan called for one piece of 

equipment to move over the berm at a time. He did not know whether using multiple pieces

would have had any negative effect on the stability of the berm. (Tr. 327). 

On redirect, Mr. Holeman explained why he did not believe it necessary to test the soil

either for compactness or density. According to Mr. Holeman, the density test tells the weight of

the soil and how dense the material is in relation to pounds per square foot. A compaction test

tells only the weight of the soil per square inch. Moreover, the compaction test only measures

the compaction of the soil to a depth of one foot. Mr. Holeman testified that neither test gives

any indication of whether a berm is safe to travel on. (Tr. 330). 

7. David Scheiner

David Scheiner has been Respondent’s Safety Director for eight years and has been 

working in construction safety for approximately ten years. (Tr. 336). Mr. Scheiner developed 
22

the checklist that was used daily by Foreman Villa.30 (Tr. 337, Ex. R-2). Among other things, 

the checklist requires that the foreman and operators walk the berm, check that safety rules are

followed, and inquire about weather conditions. The checklist also indicated a “Yes” to the 

question “Is burm [sic] and job site adequate.” The checklist comment’s section included a 

statement that “We also talked about not overloading the truck and taking it easy while on the 

berm because it was covered with grass.” (Tr. 338-39; R-2, p. 2). The checklist does not require 

any form of testing. (Tr. 338-340). Mr. Scheiner explained that the checklist was generated for

the protection of employees. (Tr. 339). He testified that County vehicles and big dump trucks 

traveled on the “road [berm].” (Tr. 340). He further testified that he found nothing about the 

berm that led him to believe that it required any sort of special soil testing. (Tr. 340). 

On cross-examination, Mr. Scheiner testified that he was not knowledgeable about how 

much weight a berm could hold and did not know whether the earlier presence of vehicles on the 

berm would have affected its stability. (Tr. 343). He opined that, if such vehicles left gullies or 

anything out of the ordinary, it would have been detected on the foreman's daily inspection of the 

berm. (Tr. 345). 

8. Jaime Lopez

In rebuttal, the Secretary called Jaime Lopez, an OSHA lead safety engineer (Tr. 348).31

CO Lopez testified that he had previously used the standard to cite an employer where an

excavator fell into a canal after the soil underneath collapsed, drowning the operator. (Tr. 351). 

He testified that OSHA used the standard in this case because CFER made the top, or “grade,” of 

the north berm a “road” and an “access road” on which CFER operated the CAT and other 

equipment.32 (Tr. 351). He stated that there was a drowning hazard in the case because CFER’s

30The checklist, dated July 22, 2008, identified Messrs. Santiago Salazar, Tod LaRoche, 

Saternino Polan, and Herman Ogarro as CFER employees on Job No. C0723, Job Name

“SDWWTP”, and was signed by John Villa as foreman. (R-2, p.2). 

31CO Lopez is a mechanical engineer with a degree in engineering. CO Lopez supervised 

CO Leorza for about three years. He assigned CO Leorza to conduct the CFER inspection, 

reviewed the case file, discussed the case with him, and together they decided what standard was 

appropriate for the case. (Tr. 349-51). 

32CO Lopez testified that “Grade” is a piece of land, section, or part of a road. (Tr. 352). 
23

employees were exposed to drowning when they were operating equipment on a section of the

berm right next to a water retention pond where the soil gave away and equipment fell into the

pond. (Tr. 352). 

CO Lopez visited the job site in July, 2009. He stated that he “could see how dangerous 

it could be to operate a truck, that type of truck [CAT] on that berm.” (Tr. 356). In Mr. Lopez' 

view, nothing foreman Villa did on the day of the inspection, specifically walking along the 

berm, did anything to prevent a heavy piece of equipment from collapsing the berm if he did not 

actually check the soil.33 (Tr. 353). He stated that there was a concentrated load under each

wheel of the CAT, and that differs from a tracked vehicle where weight is distributed alongside 

and under the equipment. (Tr. 354). In his view, according to the principles of soil mechanics, a 

berm will act like a trench (Tr. 355). Water will affect soil’s cohesiveness and the berm’s

embankment angle will affect its stability. He did not know whether the pond was lined to 

prevent erosion. (Tr. 379). Here, because this was a man-made berm made of pre-disturbed soil, 

the berm was not as stable as it would have been in a natural state. (Tr. 355). He also noted that 

the probability of an accident was increased because the weight of the load was concentrated 

under the tires, only about a foot and a half from the edge of the berm. The hazard this creates is

recognized by the trenching standards that do not allow a static load within two feet of the wall

of an excavation. (Tr. 358). Here, there was a dynamic load that was closer to the edge than two

feet. (Tr. 358). 

According to Mr. Lopez, Respondent could have avoided the hazard by several means.

For example, Respondent could have talked to the designer of the berm or used a smaller

vehicle. Also, Respondent could have used a different method, such as leaving gravel on the 

side of the berm and pushing it into place, rather than have a dump truck drop it at the berm. (Tr.

360). Mr. Lopez noted that this alternative process was used by another contractor after the 

accident. (Tr. 360). 

33He stated that his 9 year old son could have looked at the north berm the way Mr. Villa

did. He further stated that Mr. Villa’s inspection would not prevent a heavy piece of equipment 

from collapsing if the soil is not checked. (Tr. 353, 381-82). 
24

He also testified that OSHA performed no soil testing and that he did not know the load 

capacity of the berm. He knew that the berm collapsed. (Tr. 370). He agreed that nobody saw 

the accident. (Tr. 371-72). However, based on the police investigation, he concluded that the 

berm collapsed under the weight of the CAT. Mr. Lopez also testified that there was no

evidence that erosion was an issue in the accident. However, he maintained that the water

affected the cohesiveness of the soil. (Tr. 380). 

Mr. Lopez testified that he considered the berm to be more like an access road. He

testified that CFER made the north berm a road on July 22, 2008 by operating vehicles on it. (Tr. 

376-78). In his view, it was a road because it was used to travel from one section of the berm to

another. (Tr. 377). He opined that if a section is used to move equipment on it and employees

are instructed to operate on a particular path, it becomes a road. (Tr. 378). CO Lopez stated that 

CFER was required “to make sure that it is safe to operate on top of the berm.” (Tr. 374). CO

Lopez testified that CFER should not have considered the berm safe to drive the CAT on just 

because other trucks may have driven on it, just as one could not conclude that a person exposed 

to a fall hazard for thirty years could not fall in a building without a railing. (Tr. 375). 

On redirect, Mr. Lopez maintained that it was the responsibility of the employer to know 

the stability of the soil and the characteristics of the berm. (Tr. 383). He explained that OSHA

did not do its own soil testing because, in its view, a berm collapsed. OSHA knew that the berm 

failed and that the employer was operating a heavy piece of equipment on it. It was OSHA's

expectation that the employer would give OSHA the relevant information. (Tr. 384). 

Discussion

Applicability of the Standard to the Cited Conditions

The first element that must be considered when determining whether the Secretary

established a prima facie violation is whether the standard applies to the allegedly hazardous

condition. The Court finds that it does. 

First, the Court finds that the CAT 725 is Earthmoving Equipment and an off-highway 

truck. (R-14, p. 25; Tr. 124, 180). The CAT 725 is a subclass of construction equipment that is

considered earthmoving equipment within the meaning of the Material Handling Equipment 

Construction standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1926.602(a)(3)(i). The regulations define earthmoving 

equipment as "scrapers, loaders, crawler or wheel tractors, bulldozers, off-highway trucks, 
25

graders, agricultural and industrial tractors, and similar equipment." 29 C.F.R. § 

1926.602(a)(1).34 Respondent was using the CAT 725 to move tons of fill to raise the elevation

of the berms. (Tr. 123, 178-80, 318; G-24, p. 1). The Commission has previously treated dump 

trucks as earthmoving equipment. See Donohew An Individual Trading as Donohew Excavating 

Co., 1980 WL 10415, at *2, *4 (No. 79-4599, 1980) (upholding violation of 29 C.F.R. § 

1926.602(a)(9)(ii) for dump trucks that were not equipped with reverse signal alarms); S. J.

Groves & Sons Co., 5 BNA OSHC 1846 (No. 15573, 1977)(parties agreed that Caterpillar 

off-highway end dump trucks were earthmoving equipment under 29 C.F.R. § 1926.602(a)(1)

and court found that Secretary improperly cited the dump trucks for violations of 29 C.F.R. §

1926.601(b)(14)). 

Second, the Court finds that Respondent used the north berm at pond 2 as an “access 

roadway” on July 22, 2008. The Secretary asserts that the north berm is an access roadway

under the standard. The Commission gives substantial deference to the Secretary’s reasonable

interpretations of her standards. Secretary of Labor v. OSHRC et al., 499 U.S. 144 (1991).35 I 

find the Secretary’s interpretation of the standard to be reasonable. The subsection, of which the 

cited standard is a part, is entitled "Access roadways and grades."36 29 C.F.R. § 1926.602(a)(3). 

The cited standard, which constitutes the first subdivision, specifically applies to “any access

roadway or grade.” 29 C.F.R. § 1926.602(a)(3)(i). However, the next subdivision specifically 

34No definition of “off-highway trucks” appears in the standard. Mr. Villa admitted that

the CAT 725 was an off-road vehicle. (Tr. 202). 

35See also Beverly Healthcare-Hillview, 2005 WL 1061669, at *3 (Nos. 04-1091 and 

04-1092, 2005). "The agency's interpretation is 'reasonable ... so long as the interpretation 

sensibly conforms to the purpose and wording of the regulations.’" Id.

36The term “access road” is not defined by the regulations. The title of a statute and 

heading of a section may be used to shed light on an ambiguous word or phrase. Brotherhood of

R. R. Trainmen v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 331 U.S. 519, 529 (1947). See, e.g., Wray Electric 

Contracting, Inc., 6 BNA OSHC 1981 (No.76-119, 1978) (holding that section (b) of 29 C.F.R. § 

1926.556, entitled "Extensible and articulating boom platforms," is not unconstitutionally vague 

as applied to equipment that is not an 'extensible boom' or 'articulating platform' where

equipment still falls under general heading of "Aerial lifts" under subsection (a) of 29 C.F.R. § 

1926.556), aff’d 638 F.2d 914 (6th Cir. 1980). 
26

references "access ramp[s]" and "berm[s]." 29 C.F.R. § 1926.602(a)(3)(ii). The inclusion of 

berms within the subsection entitled "Access roadways and grades" demonstrates that a berm

may be considered an access road within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.602(a)(3) when used 

as a path for the movement of an earthmoving vehicle. Moreover, I find that the Secretary’s

interpretation comports with the common interpretation of the term “access road.” The Secretary

points out that the Random House Dictionary defines an “access road” as “a road that provides 

access to a specific destination, as to a main highway or to a property that lies within a property.” 

Dictionary.com Unabridged, Random House, Inc. (2010), available at http://dictionary.reference.

com/browse/ access road. Courts may look to the common usage of undefined words in 

dictionaries. See, e.g., Big Sky Well Serv., 22 BNA OSHC 1642 (No. 07-1290, 2009)(ALJ 

looked to common meaning in The American Heritage Dictionary for the definition of the word 

"floor," which is undefined in 29 C.F.R. § 1910.23(c)(1)); State Sheet Metal and Roofing Co., 

1973 WL 4248, at *5 (No. 2579, 1973)(looking to Webster's Third New International Dictionary

for definition of "platform" because "statutory construction necessitates that one must give words 

of common usage their commonly understood meaning unless it is clear from a reading of the

statute that a different meaning was intended."). 

Third, it is undisputed that CFER’s CAT 725 and other CFER equipment were operating

on top of the berm, driving its length to get to other areas of the property, to pick up more fill

and to circle and complete the process. This was done at least once on the north berm at Pond 2 

on July 22, 2008, where the berm was used by the CAT to go from point A to point B, after 

dropping off the load of soil on the berm. (SJHS No. 22; DOL Brief at 12). The Court also 

finds that the CAT 725 "moved" at the job site for purposes of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.602(a)(3)(i)

on July 22, 2008. The evidence shows that CFER both moved, and caused to be moved, the 

CAT 725 atop the north berm at pond 2. 

Lastly, the Court finds that the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the north 

berm at pond 2 was not constructed or maintained in a manner to safely accommodate the 

movement of the CAT 725 on July 22, 2008. The primary purpose of the berm was to hold 

water in the water retention pond. (Tr. at 104). There is no evidence that the north berm was

maintained by CFER, or anyone, to regularly handle highway, or off-highway vehicle traffic in a
27

safe manner. Respondent drove its CAT 725 on the berm despite the fact that the berm was not 

constructed and maintained to accommodate the safe movement of such a vehicle.

The testimony of Respondent’s expert witness, Mr. Tomich, a former OSHA Area

Director, that the standard was not applicable, is not persuasive. Mr. Tomich concluded that the 

standard does not apply to Respondent based on reading the compliance officer's report,

deposition testimony, and listening to the testimony in court. (Tr. 266). Notably, Mr. Tomich

never visited the worksite. (Tr. 272). Mr. Tomich did not know anything about the CAT 725 

prior to being hired by Respondent for his testimony in this case, and did not do any independent 

research on the specifications of the CAT 725 and its uses. (Tr. 297, 299). Mr. Tomich claims he 

is familiar with 29 C.F.R.§ 1926.602(a)(3)(i), but has never cited it in all his years with OSHA.

(Tr. 270-71). Mr. Tomich testified that the standard was not meant to apply to berms, yet that

standard contains a subsection specifically addressing berms, which falls under the same heading 

as the subsection cited, as discussed, supra. (Tr. 281). Mr. Tomich had no role in the drafting

or promulgation of the cited standard, but merely gave his own interpretation of what the

standard meant. Offshore Shipbuilding Inc., 18 BNA OSHC 2169, 2172 (No. 99-257, 2000).

The testimony of an expert witness is not necessarily controlling, even if it is not rebutted. Id.

An expert's opinions are “entitled to little weight” where they are not based on any professional 

studies or personal experience and are merely his own interpretations of OHSA standards. 

Avcon, Inc. et al., 2000 WL 1466090, at *30 (Sept. 19, 2000)(Nos. 98-0755 and 98-1168). The 

Court gave little weight to Mr. Tomich's testimony that the standard was not applicable here.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the standard cited by OSHA, 29 C.F.R. § 

1926.602(a)(3)(i), is applicable to the construction work activity being performed, the equipment 

being used to perform that activity by Respondent at the worksite, and the cited condition. 

Did Respondent Comply With the Terms of the Standard?

The second element that the Secretary must establish is that the employer failed to

comply with the terms of the standard. The Secretary has met her burden of proof here. 

Detective Nichols testified that the day of the accident was clear and sunny and that the weather

was not the cause of the accident. (Tr. 40). He also determined that, because none of the CAT’s 
28

load was left on the berm, the CAT was carrying its load when it fell into the water. (Tr. 78). 

According to Detective Nichols, the truck was in the water directly below an area where the

berm had collapsed. (Tr. 51-54; G-10 through G-12).37 Detective Nichols concluded that the 

accident was caused when a portion of the berm gave way because the weight of the CAT was

too great for the unsupported berm, which was constructed of rock and fill. (Tr. 47-49, 76). 

Compliance Officer Leorza measured the width of the berm in the area of the collapse at

twelve feet, four inches. (Tr. 125). With the width of the CAT being nine feet, five inches, he

calculated that there was roughly only 1.5' clearance on each side of the berm. (Tr. 125). Mr. 

Lopez also explained that the angle of embankment affects the stability of a wall. (Tr. 355). In 

this regard, both CO Leorza and OSHA safety engineer Lopez were concerned about the 

steepness of the berm, which affected the distribution of the weight of the CAT along the berm 

walls. (Tr. 130, 355). CO Leorza was also concerned that the water abutting the berm could 

have filtered into the berm and adversely affected its stability. (Tr. 131). This concern was 

echoed by Mr. Lopez. (Tr. 355, 358). 

Mr. Villa’s cursory, visual inspection of the surface of the berm looking for holes on July 

22, 2008 should have given him pause not to summarily dispatch the CAT 725 to repeatedly 

drive atop the north berm with loads of fill. CFER’s management decided to take advantage of 

the ready availability of the CAT 725 in the pond area. Use of the larger CAT 725 reduced the 

anticipated time needed to distribute fill on top of the berms. Mr. LaRoche was fortunate to have 

completed one pass atop the north berm without incident. Using a CAT 725 to haul fill atop a 

man-made berm that provided less than 6 inches of clearance on either side of its wheels to the 

berm’s edge was not prudent by any measure. Mr. Villa assumed that the north berm was stable

because he thought that the condition of the material was similar to that in areas between the

berms and leading up to the berms. (Tr. 199, 203). Mr. Villa’s assumption was not only faulty; 

it proved to be fatal to Mr. LaRoche. CFER’s management’s plan to complete the job using a 

37Detective Nichols noted that tracks led directly to the point where the berm collapsed.

(Tr. 51-52; G-8).
29

CAT 725 to distribute the fill atop the berms was a recipe for failure.38 It should have been 

foreseeable to Mr. Villa, and to any prudent management official who inspected the berm, that

the dispatch of the CAT 725 to repeatedly drive atop the north berm in order to deliver fill 

without conducting further analysis would likely result in a calamity of some kind. 

It was obvious to Mr. Chorlog that putting a vehicle the size and weight of the CAT 725

on top of the berm was unreasonable. (Tr. 96). The Court finds Mr. Chorlog to be a creditable 

witness, more so than Messrs. Holeman and Scheiner. Mr. Holeman initially testified that

Respondent had previously driven a 345 Caterpillar backhoe track hoe (“backhoe”), which 

weighs 100,000 lbs., on the berms. (Tr. 311, 314). Mr. Holeman later admitted on cross 

examination that the work previously done was not on the berms, but in the area between the

retention ponds. (Tr. at 319). Mr. Holeman also testified on cross-examination that the backhoe 

exceeds eleven feet in width, yet it was not right up on the edge but "close" to the edge when 

driving on top of the berm. (Tr. at 320). This testimony is not credible in light of the measurements of the width of the berm taken by the police. If the backhoe did exceed eleven feet, it

would have been over the edge and would have fallen into the water at the point of the berm that

was less than eleven feet wide. Mr. Scheiner testified that the County had previously had heavy 

dump trucks traveling "on that road." Mr. Scheiner also refers to "that same berm area" in that

answer. (Tr. at 340). First, it is noteworthy that Mr. Scheiner referred to the berm as a “road.”

Second, Mr. Scheiner gave conflicting testimony when he said that the County had equipment on 

the berm, and then in the same sentence said in the area of the berm. The Court finds Mr. 

Scheiner’s testimony in this regard to be contradictory and lacking in detail as to the precise

38CFER’s approach was ill-conceived and ignored any analysis that a mishap may

happen. See National Engr. & Contracting Co., and Meroe Contracting & Supply Co. (“Nat’l 

Engr.”), 14 BNA OSHC 1448, 1454 (Nos. 88-2059, 88-226, 1989)(upholding violation of 29 

C.F.R. § 1926.602(a)(3)(i) where employer operated front-end loader on ramp without a stop log 

or curb on the side noting that the employer "should have taken into account that mechanical

equipment is subject to malfunctioning and that an accident could always happen."). A large 

dump truck is difficult to control and drive completely straight, even with an experienced

operator. CFER should have reasonably anticipated that in operating the dump truck within

inches and at most a foot or two from the edge of a nearly nine-foot drop, the dump truck could 

accidently go over the edge.
30

location that he was referring to. 

The Court finds that Detective Nichols is correct that the most likely cause of the 

accident was that a portion of the north berm gave way because the weight of the CAT 725 was 

too great for the narrow berm. The photographic exhibits demonstrate that a large portion of the 

berm gave way, directly above where the truck fell into the pond. Respondent posits no theory 

that demonstrates that the accident occurred for other reasons.39 Whether the accident occurred

because the berm could not support the weight of the CAT or because the CAT was too wide to 

safely navigate the berm, the evidence established that the berm was not constructed or maintained to allow the CAT to operate safely and that the standard was violated. CFER failed to 

comply with the standard when its foreman ordered Mr. LaRoche to drive the CAT on top of a 

berm that was not constructed or maintained in a manner to safely accommodate the movement

of the CAT.

Employee Access to the Hazard

The third element the Secretary must establish is that employees had access to the hazard.

Phoenix Roofing Inc., 17 BNA OSHC 1076, 1079 (No. 90-2148, 1995), aff’d 79 F.3d 1146 (5th

Cir., 1996). It is not disputed that CFER’s CAT 725 operator, Mr. LaRoche, operated the truck 

on the berm pursuant to instructions conveyed by Mr. Villa. Accordingly, actual exposure to the 

hazardous condition was established. When Mr. LaRoche drove the CAT 725 along the top of 

the berms around Ponds 1 and 2, he was exposed to a drowning hazard. The fact that Mr.

LaRoche actually drowned is undeniable proof of his exposure. See Yonkers Contracting Co., 

Inc., 2002 WL 264529, at *2 (No. 00-2011, 2002)(ALJ)(employees exposed to drowning hazard 

where employee actually fell off bridge), aff’d 19 BNA OSHC 2143 (2002); J-Lenco Inc., 2002 

WL 1546566, at *7 (No. 01-0712, 2002) ("The accident plainly demonstrates that the terms of 

the standard were violated and that an employee was exposed to the cited hazard."); Active Oil

Serv., Inc., 2002 WL 538932, at *4 (No. 00-0482, 2002)("As to exposure, the accident clearly

demonstrates that four of Respondent's employees were exposed to the cited condition."). Here, 

39There is no evidence that Mr. LaRoche deliberately drove the CAT 725 into the water. 
31

Respondent failed to protect its employees and violated the standard by exposing its employees

to the hazard. 

Knowledge

The final element in the Secretary’s burden of proof is that the employer had knowledge 

of the hazard. To establish the knowledge element it is not necessary for the Secretary to show

that the employer was aware of being in violation of the cited standard. Rather, knowledge is 

established where the Secretary demonstrates that the employer had either actual or constructive

knowledge of the violative conditions. ConAgra Flour Milling Co., 15 BNA OSHC 1817, 1823 

(No. 88-2572, 1992). This means that the employer either knew of the violative conditions or 

could have known of them with the exercise of reasonable diligence. Id. The Secretary does not

have to prove that the employer knew that the conditions constituted a violation. Id.

Respondent knew or could have known of the cited condition at its workplace on July 22, 

2008. See Pride Oil Well Serv., 15 BNA OSHC 1809, 1814 (No. 87-692, 1992)(To meet her

burden of establishing employer knowledge, the Secretary must show that the cited “employer

either knew or, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, could have known of the presence of 

the violative condition."); Gary Concrete Products Inc., 15 BNA OSHC 1051, 1052 (No.

86-1087, 1991). Reasonable diligence requires an employer to inspect the work area, anticipate 

hazards to which employees may be exposed or accidents that could occur, and take measures to

prevent the occurrence of violations or accidents. Pride, supra at 1814; Nat'l Engr., supra at

1454 (when surveying ramp for safety, employer should have taken into account mechanical

equipment occasionally malfunctions and an accident could always happen). CFER failed to 

exercise reasonable diligence. Although Respondent put together a berm safety check list,

reasonable diligence requires more than walking along the berm checking for any holes in the

soil and its composition. Mr. Villa’s visual inspection did not provide any meaningful information about the soil composition and whether the berm could withstand a vehicle with the size and

weight distribution of the CAT 725 operating close to the edge of the berm. Respondent ignored 

the drowning hazard and failed to take adequate measures to prevent the CAT from falling into

the pond. Respondent did not ask the County about the weight-bearing capacity of the berm or if
it was safe to operate the CAT 725 on the berms. Nothing prevented Respondent from so doing. 

(Tr. 198-99, 321-22). Mr. Villa also could have looked at the CAT Manual for the CAT 725

before directing Mr. LaRoche to operate the equipment in the conditions present on the worksite. 

The CAT Manual included warnings of the dangers associated with the use of that equipment in

certain conditions, and it warns against using the equipment in the conditions present on 

Respondent's worksite on the berms around the retention ponds. (See R-14, pp. 22-23, 72). 

The actual or constructive knowledge of a foreman or supervisor can be imputed to the 

employer. Tampa Shipyards Inc., 15 BNA OSHC 1533,1537 (Nos. 86-360 and 86-469,

1992)(citing A.P. O'Horo Co., 14 BNA OSHC 2004, 2007, (No. 85-369, 1991)). Respondent 

had actual knowledge of the cited workplace conditions on July 22, 2008.40 Mr. Villa walked on 

top of the berms. The evidence shows that Respondent knew that its workers were working on 

the berm, and were specifically directed by the foreman, with the Superintendent's knowledge 

and approval, to operate the CAT 725 on top of the berm in order to complete the job. (Tr. 

179-82, 318). Mr. Villa directed Mr. LaRoche to drive the CAT 725, a piece of equipment 

capable of weighing 101,000 lbs., with a concentrated load under each wheel, within inches of 

the edge of a steep eight to nine-foot drop into a body of water. It is foreseeable, given these

circumstances, that the berm might collapse beneath the weight of the CAT 725, or that the CAT 

725 could veer off the side of the berm because the operator did not have sufficient clearance.

The drowning hazard was in plain view and was open and obvious given the width of the dump 

truck and the width of the berm, the fact the dump truck is a wheel-mounted vehicle with a

concentrated load, the steepness of the berm, the proximity to water and the berm consisting of 

rocky soil. Courts have found that an employer has knowledge of a safety violation where the

condition is in plain view and is "open and obvious." See, e.g., Native Textiles Co., 20 BNA

0SHC 1110, 1116-17 (holding that Secretary showed employer's knowledge of violation where 

condition of defective stop buttons on machines (they were either broken or black capped, 

instead of red mushroom-type caps) was "open and obvious and should have been discovered by

supervisory personnel."). Respondent had knowledge of the drowning hazard because it was in

40Even if Respondent did not have actual knowledge of the hazardous condition, CFER 

certainly had constructive knowledge.

32 
33

plain view and Respondent's foreman directed Mr. LaRoche to operate the CAT 725 in these 

unsafe conditions. 

John Chorlog testified that he “couldn't believe” that Respondent would put such a large 

truck on top of the berm. (Tr. 96). He explained that he did not consider running the CAT on the 

berm to be reasonable given the size of the CAT's wheels, the pressure it imposed on the berm,

and the closeness of the wheels to the edge of the berm. (Tr. 96). Mr. Chorlog's opinion is 

supported by the CAT Manual. The CAT Manual warns that (1) the operator of the CAT should 

not get too close to edges of cliffs and embankments; (2) the operator should have adequate 

clearance around the machine; (3) newly filled earth may collapse from the weight of the 

machine; (4) rocks and moisture of the surface drastically affect the machine's traction and

stability; and (5) rocky surfaces may promote side slipping of the machine. (R-14, pp. 22-23, 

72). The CAT Manual further states that before operating the CAT 725, the operator needs to 

know the “maximum dimensions of [the] machine.” (R-14, p. 22). 

The width of the CAT, measured from outside of the wheels, was 9.5 feet.41 (Tr. 122). 

Detective Nichols testified that, according to police measurements, the width of the berm where

the accident occurred ranged from ten feet, four inches to fourteen feet, two inches wide. At its

narrowest point, the CAT had less than one-half of a foot clearance on each side of the berm.42

(Tr. 37, 76, 122, 125). Although Respondent admitted that the width of the dump truck and the 

amount of clearance on either side are important considerations in determining whether it is safe

to use an off-road truck on the berm, Respondent did not know the exact width of the CAT 725 

or the berm and directed its employees to use the CAT 725 on the berm where there was very 

little clearance. (Tr. at 202-04, 324-26). Both the Miami-Dade County Police Department and

41Foreman Villa testified that he would be surprised if the CAT 725 was 9.5 feet wide.

He gave an estimated width of eight and a half to nine feet. (Tr. 191-92). Given this range, it is

clear that Mr. Villa had no actual knowledge of the precise width and was only providing a 

rough estimate. In contrast, the CO's testimony was based on actual measurements. More

importantly, the parties stipulated as fact that the CAT 725 is 9.5 feet from wheel to wheel.

(SJHS No. 12).

42This amount is based upon subtracting nine feet, six inches from ten feet, four inches, 

equaling ten inches, and then dividing the result by two equaling five inches on each side of the 

CAT on the north berm.
34

OSHA measured the CAT 725 to be approximately nine feet, five inches from wheel to wheel.

(Tr. at 76, 122, 125). The operator’s manual specifications provide that the truck's overall width, 

including the side mirrors, is ten feet, nine inches. (R-14, p. 28). 

Mr. Villa testified that he believed that there was approximately 1.5 feet clearance in

some areas on each side of the CAT.43 (Tr. 219). Mr. Villa believed 1.5 feet to be adequate 

clearance for the CAT on the north berm. At best, this assumes that the CAT operator would be 

able to consistently drive the vehicle straight down the middle of the berm, made of a gravelly

fill material and of an inconsistent width. 

Given the warnings contained in the CAT Manual, and the testimony of Messrs. Chorlog, 

Lopez and Leorza, as well as Detective Nichols, I find that a reasonable person familiar with the

circumstances of the industry would have recognized that driving the CAT along the berm 

constituted a hazard. The CAT Manual warns that newly filled earth may collapse from the 

weight of the machine and that rocky surfaces, such as the material used to construct the berm,

may promote side slipping. Having decided to use a machine as large as the CAT 725, it was 

incumbent upon Respondent to take measures to ensure that the berm was constructed or 

maintained in a manner sufficient to support the off-road truck. 

The record also demonstrates that there were steps that CFER could have taken to

determine the safety of the berm. For example, Foreman Villa admitted that the size and weight

of the truck and its load are important factors in determining whether the berm is strong enough 

to hold the load. (Tr. 201). Yet, Respondent made no meaningful effort to ascertain if it was safe

to drive the CAT atop the north berm. CFER did not ascertain the weight of the CAT or the 

load. (Tr. 202). It never contacted the County or the general contractor to determine the load

capacity of the berm. (Tr. 191, 199). It never sought to determine whether there was any erosion

on the side of the berm adjacent to the water. (Tr. 202). Although Respondent was responsible 

43Mr. Villa’s testimony was not precise. His estimated clearance may have represented

only an average clearance on top of the berm. Where the berm was over fourteen feet wide,

the clearance (assuming the operator was driving down the middle of the berm) could have 

been as much as just under 2.5'. On the other hand, where the berm was only ten feet, four 

inches wide, the clearance would have been about ten inches. Mr. Villa’s lack of knowledge 

of the clearance reflects his lack of diligence in deciding to dispatch the CAT 725 to drive 

along the top of the berms.
35

for performing testing associated with the work, it did not conduct any soil testing of the berms.

(G-23, ¶ 2.8; Tr. 172, 191, 321, 323). Respondent failed to gather the adequate information

necessary to make an informed assessment about the safety of using the CAT 725 on the berms.

Despite all the red flags, including the warnings contained in the CAT Manual, Respondent chose to use a large and heavy truck, even though the job could have been completed using

smaller, lighter trucks. (Tr. 97). Where the employer has made efforts to comply with a

performance standard and the Secretary argues that those efforts were deficient, it is incumbent 

on the Secretary to demonstrate where the employer’s efforts fell short and what it should have 

done to comply. See Trinity Industries Inc., 15 BNA OSHC 1579, 1590 (Nos. 88-1545 & 88- 

1547, 1992), rev’d on other grounds, 16 F.3d 1149 (11th Cir. 1994). The Secretary has shown 

where CFER fell short and what it could have done to comply with the standard.

The undisputed evidence establishes that Respondent assigned a large and heavy CAT 

725 to travel on a berm constructed adjacent to a retention pond, and that the CAT would have 

little clearance on either side of the berm. Indeed, the foreman walked the berm before the start

of work that day to check for holes and to ensure that the berm was fairly level. Respondent 

took no meaningful steps and made no inquiries to determine whether the berm was constructed

or maintained to accommodate its choice of vehicles. Accordingly, I find that the Secretary

established that Respondent knew, or with the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have 

known that the berm was not constructed or maintained to accommodate the CAT 725. 

The Court also finds that all of the defenses raised by Respondent are without merit.44 

Respondent contends that the standard is vague because it is a performance standard that fails to

44Respondent’s defenses that the accident did not occur on an “access road” and the use 

of the CAT 725 was proper have been previously discussed herein and found to be without merit

for the reasons stated. (Ans., at pp. 3-4; SJHS, at pp. 9-10). Respondent also initially pled the 

affirmative defense of employee misconduct in its answer. (Ans., at p. 3). It did not include 

such affirmative defense in the SJHS. Respondent did not introduce evidence of employee

misconduct at the hearing and Mr. Villa testified that no employee violated any work rule or

instruction. (Tr. 195; G-20 at p. 1). See also Respondent’s Response to Complainant

Interrogatory No. 3, where Respondent stated “No employee is known to have violated any work 

rule or work practice.” (G-26, at p. 3). The Court finds that Respondent has abandoned or 

waived any employee misconduct affirmative defense. See Dole Packaged Food Co. et al., 1989 

WL 223471, at *4 (Nos. 88-0665 and 88-2672, 1989). 
36

set forth precisely what an employer is expected to do to comply. It contends the Secretary was

obligated to demonstrate that a reasonable person, familiar with the circumstances of the 

industry, would recognize a hazardous condition requiring the use of protective measures.

Farrens Tree Surgeons, Inc., 15 BNA OSHC 1793, 1794 (No. 90-998, 1992). The Court finds

the evidence demonstrates that a reasonable person, familiar with the circumstances of the 

industry, would have recognized that operating a vehicle as large as the CAT 725 on the berm 

posed a hazard.

The standard is not vague. A standard is not vague merely because it requires the 

exercise of judgment. Dravo Corp., 7 BNA OSHC 2095, 2098 (No. 16317, 1980)(relevant 

inquiry is whether reasonable persons agree as to the application of the standard to the 

circumstances of the case). Rather, a standard must be read in light of the conduct to which it 

applies and the employer must guide its actions accordingly. Id. Moreover, when faced with a 

broadly worded standard, the courts and the Commission have considered whether a reasonably

prudent employer, familiar with the circumstances, would recognize a hazard warranting

protection. Pride Oil Well Service, supra at 1813. The Fifth Circuit has determined that

“industry custom and practice will generally establish the conduct of a reasonably prudent 

employer for the purpose of interpolating specific duties from general OSHA regulations.”

Cotter & Co. v. OSHRC, 598 F.2d 911, 913 (5th Cir. 1979). 

Commission case law has previously addressed 29 C.F.R. § 1926.602(a)(3)(i). In her

post-hearing briefs, Complainant cited Nat’l Engr., supra at 1454 (violation of 29 C.F.R. § 

1926.602(a)(3)(i) upheld where a front-end loader and concrete trucks were driven on a ramp);

Guy F. Atkinson Co., d/b/a Guy F. Atkinson Constr. Co., 11 BNA OSHC 1566, 1983 WL 23747, 

at *7 (No. 82-0835, 1983)(holding that the “haul road” used by Dart heavy duty belly dump dirt

hauling vehicle to move clay to cover bottom portion of excavation on site qualified as “an 

access road or grade” within meaning of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.602(a)(3)(i)); Anjo Constr. Co., 7 

BNA OSHC 1998 (No. 78-2177, 1979) (violation of 29 C.F.R. § 602(a)(3)(i)) affirmed against

an employer for permitting a crawler-type front-end loader to be moved on a grade which had 

not been accommodated for the safe movement of vehicles); Leon Boulton and Sons, Inc., 1976 

WL 21971, at *3 (No. 15617, 1976)(ALJ)(finding no violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.602(a)(3)(i) 

where roadway used by earthmoving equipment for excavation was maintained in a safe
37

manner), aff’d 1977 WL 7633 (1977); and Welltech Mid-Continent, 1999 WL 15429 (No. 

97-873, 1999)(“Welltech”), (29 C.F.R. § 1926.602(a)(3)(i) found inapplicable to semi-tractor

rigs, identified as 8687 Peterbuilt rigs, with attached belly dump trailers, because the Peterbuilt

trucks were not used exclusively for off-highway work and Secretary did not prove that Welltech

had failed to construct and maintain the access road “to accommodate safely the movement of”

the Peterbuilt trucks when the access road became muddy and slick as rainfall increased).45

Respondent asserts in its First Affirmative Defense that other entities controlled the

worksite and therefore Respondent is not responsible for any violations. (Ans. at p. 2; SJHS at p. 

8). Respondent controlled the worksite and Respondent's work on the berms. (Tr. 196-97, 

318-19). Respondent was responsible for creating the hazardous situation by operating a large 

piece of equipment so close to the edge of the north berm without taking any measurements or 

reasonable steps to determine the full weight of the vehicle or the weight-bearing capacity of the

berm. Respondent, alone, made the decision to use the particular equipment on the berm.

Respondent also directed its employees to operate the CAT 725 on the berm and is thus the 

exposing employer. It is well settled that each employer is responsible for the safety of its own

employees. RMS Consulting, LLC, 20 BNA OSHC 1994, 1997 (No. 03-0479, 2004). On a 

multi-employer work site, OSHA may appropriately cite a subcontractor where employees are

exposed to a hazard. Id. 

Respondent failed to prove its affirmative defenses of infeasibility and greater hazard.

(Ans. at pp. 2-4; SJHS at pp. 9, 11). Respondent has failed to meet its burden of proof as to its 

affirmative defenses that compliance with the requirement in 29 C.F.R. § 1926.602(a)(3)(i) to 

ensure that the berm was constructed and maintained to safely operate heavy earthmoving 

45Welltech is distinguishable from the instant case. In Welltech, the employer was

constructing an extension from an existing access road, composed of dirt and shale. Welltech,

supra at *1-2. An employee died when the Peterbuilt rig that he was operating travelled off the 

road and overturned into the pond at the bottom of the slope. Id. at *2. The Secretary alleged a 

violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.602(a)(3)(i) based on the roadway being slick and muddy due to 

rainfall. The evidence showed that the roadway was slick, but not hazardous. Id. at *5-6. 

Unlike Welltech, the evidence in the instant case shows that the CAT 725 was too large for the 

road and that it was operating too close to the edge of the berm. The hazard here was not

conditioned upon the external affects of weather on the roadway. 
38

equipment on it would be infeasible or create a greater hazard. The "infeasibility defense"

requires Respondent to prove that it was impossible to perform the construction work without the 

use of the CAT 725, or that not using that piece of equipment would result in a greater hazard.

See Havens Steel Company, 6 BNA OSHC 1564, 1566 (No. 13463, 1978)(infeasibility of using 

fall protection requires employer to show it was “impossible to erect safety nets, that safety nets

would make performance of the work impossible or result in a greater hazard”), Cleveland

Consol., Inc. v. OSHRC, 649 F.2d 1160, 1165 (5th Cir. 1981). The "greater hazard" defense

requires an employer to establish that "(1) the hazards created by complying with the standard 

are greater than those of noncompliance; (2) other methods of protecting its employees from the

hazards are not available; and (3) a variance is not available or that application for a variance is 

inappropriate." Spancrete Northeast Inc., 15 BNA OSHC 1020, 1022 (No. 86-521, 1991)(citing 

Walker Towing Corp., 14 BNA OSHC 2072, 2078 (No. 87-1359, 1991)). 

Respondent's foreman admitted that it was feasible to do the job using different equipment. (Tr. 205). It was actually possible to complete the job without driving the CAT 725 on top 

of the berm. Mr. Chorlog testified that the work was, in fact, completed by another subcontractor using different means and methods. Mr. Chorlog testified that the work was completed by

delivering and dumping the fill at the ends of the berms and using a bulldozer to push the fill out

onto the berm. (Tr. 97). Respondent has failed to present evidence sufficient to establish the

affirmative defenses of infeasibility or greater hazard.

Respondent also asserts that it reasonably relied on the expertise of the County and other 

entities. (Ans. at p. 4; SJHS at p. 10). The evidence in the record shows the contrary. Respondent's management officials affirmatively testified that they did not rely on any representations 

from any other entities regarding how to perform the work and regarding the safety and 

conditions of the berm. (Tr. 94, 197, 322-23; G-23; ¶ 1.6). The Court finds any such defense 

lacks factual support and merit.

Respondent further asserts that it has not engaged in any act or omission which was the 

cause in fact or proximate cause of the accident. (Ans. at pp. 4-5; SJHS at p. 11). The Secretary

does not need to prove the cause of an accident; "the Act's specific mandate is to prevent the first 

injury from occurring." Secretary v. Spinello Constr. Co., 1981 WL 19340, at *13, (citing 

Brennan v. OSHRC and Underhill Construction Corp., 513 F.2d 1032 (2d Cir. 1975)). Accord- 
39

ingly, "the statute is violated when a recognized hazard is maintained, whether or not an injury 

occurs." Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. OSHRC, 607 F.2d 871, 874 (3d Cir. 1979) (citing cases). See

also Secretary v. Mordue and d/b/a Peoria Patio, 1981 WL 19474, *6, (No. 80-6246, 1981) 

(noting that it is unnecessary for “an accident or injuries [to] result from a violation in order to 

prove noncompliance[,]" and that the explosion and fire demonstrated the lethal nature of the 

hazard. The OSHA violations existed prior to the accident and would have supported a citation 

if the Gilsonite had never ignited.). The courts need only evaluate "whether there is substantial 

evidence in the record supporting the charge that the employer maintained, at the time and place

alleged, a recognized hazard to the safety of its employees." Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. OSHRC, 

supra at 874. In this instance, CFER maintained a recognized hazard at the north berm on July 

22, 2008 and Mr. LaRoche’s death resulted directly from a violation of the standard.

Characterization

The Secretary characterized the violation as serious. Under section 17(k) of the Act, 29 

U.S.C. § 666(k), a violation is serious if there is a substantial probability that death or serious 

physical harm could result. This does not mean that the occurrence of an accident must be a

probable result of the violative condition but, rather, that a serious injury is the likely result if an 

accident does occur. ConAgra Flour Milling Co., supra at 824. Here the evidence establishes

that failing to construct and maintain the berm to accommodate safely the movement of the CAT 

725 could, and in fact did, result in death. Mr. LaRoche died when the CAT 725 fell into the 

water, trapping and drowning him. There is no question that an accident is possible, that the 

CAT 725 did fall in the water, and that the operator drowned. The citation is properly classified 

as a serious violation given the nature of the work, operating heavy equipment on a berm with

minimal clearance, within inches and, at most, a foot or two from the edge of a nine-foot drop 

into a body of water. Therefore, the violation was properly characterized as serious.

Penalty

The Secretary proposed a penalty of $4,900 for the violation. In assessing penalties, the

Commission gives “due consideration to the employer’s prior history and good faith, the size of 
40

the employer’s business, and the gravity of the cited violations.” 29 U.S.C. § 666(j); S&G

Packaging Co., 19 BNA OSHC 1503, 1509 (No. 98-1107, 2001). 

CO Leorza testified that, when determining the appropriate penalty, OSHA considered

the gravity of the violation to be “greater” based on the working conditions. (Tr. 146). CO 

Lopez testified that the severity of the citation was “high” because CFER employees were

exposed to a drowning hazard that could cause death. (Tr. 357). For that reason, the citation was 

classified as serious. (Tr. 359). CO Lopez also testified that the case involved a greater 

probability based on the number of factors, including weight and load of the CAT, wheelbase 

width and clearance, CAT closeness to berm wall, soil mechanics and water. (Tr. 357-58).

Based on the gravity of the violation, the Secretary arrived at an unadjusted penalty of $7,000. 

(Tr. 146-47, 359). The Secretary then deducted 20% based on Respondent’s small size and 10% 

because Respondent had no prior history of violations. No deductions were given for good faith 

due to the high gravity of the violation. Therefore, the Secretary deducted a total 30% or $2,100 

from the $7,000 base penalty for a total proposed penalty of $4,900. (Tr. 147, 359). Considering 

the factors set forth at 29 U.S.C. § 666(j), I find the proposed penalty to be appropriate. 

Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law

All findings of facts and conclusions of law relevant and necessary to a determination of 

the contested issues have been found and appear in the decision above. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

52(a).
41

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is ORDERED that

the Citation for a serious violation of Section 5(a)(2) of the Act for a failure to comply with the

standard at 29 C.F.R.§ 1926.602(a)(3)(i) is AFFIRMED and a penalty of $4,900 is ASSESSED.

/s/

The Honorable Dennis L. Phillips 

U.S. OSHRC Judge

Dated: August 8, 2010

Washington, D.C.