The defendant argues that since the planks extended over the ends of the scaffold support as depicted in the photographs and in compliance with another standard that is sufficient and should excuse a violation of this standard. There are two separate standards with two separate purposes and the standard cited was clearly violated. The defendant's main concern in this case is that the four violations discussed above have been classified as serious. Violations are evaluated based on probability and severity. Probability is rated as low, medium or high.
Severity is rated as low, moderate, serious physical harm or death.
The probability and severity ratings are then placed in a penalty schedule table to come up with a standardized penalty for the rated violation. I agree with this assessment. The severity rating is based on the compliance officer's determination of the degree of injury which is reasonably predictable should an accident occur as a result of the four violations. The compliance officer concluded that serious physical harm was reasonably predictable if a worker was to fall the sixteen feet from the top stage of the scaffold to the ground. Specifically the compliance officer concluded that it was reasonably predictable that a worker would suffer a fracture as a result of such a fall.