Opinion ID: 709014
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hazards to Which Paisley Was Exposed

Text: 32 The ALJ specifically found that Paisley was exposed to (1) non-insulated exhaust system, ALJ Decision at 12 (Respondent's field mechanic ... had access to the areas with the heated pipes and could have been burned.); (2) lack of a fire extinguisher, id. at 13 (mechanic [was exposed] when he was in the cab or actually working on the crane); (3) improperly adjusted boom hoist ratchet pawls, id. at 31 (Respondent's employee was at risk when he was near the crane.); (4) modifications to boom down ratchet pawl, id. at 41 (Respondent's field mechanic ... could have been injured in the event of parts failure.); (5) lack of preventative maintenance program, id. at 46 (All of Anthony's own employees ... were exposed to the hazard of cranes which had not been subject to an appropriate preventative maintenance program.). On the basis of the record before us, we affirm the Commission's finding of liability with respect to each of these violations. 33 ACR offers several arguments why, despite the exposure of its repairman, it should not be held accountable. First, ACR argues that it should not be penalized because it is basically like a seller of equipment. See Brief for ACR at 23. Although it is true that sellers are generally not held liable under the OSH Act for supplying equipment that does not meet OSHA standards, see, e.g., Johnson v. Koppers Co., 524 F.Supp. 1182, 1189 (N.D.Ohio 1981), app. dismissed, 705 F.2d 454 (6th Cir.1982), ACR was not a mere seller of equipment. To the contrary, it maintained a repair facility for cranes and serviced cranes both in the field and in its own facility. After each rental, the crane was returned to ACR for inspection and necessary repairs. Thus, unlike a typical seller, ACR was in a favored position to learn of defects and to take actions to correct them. See Central of Ga. R.R. v. OSHRC, 576 F.2d 620, 623 (5th Cir.1978) (OSH Act focuses liability where the harm in fact can be prevented). 34 Second, ACR argues that it would be unfair to penalize it for the mere act of sending an employee to repair a problem with the crane. Under the Secretary's theory of liability, ACR argues, any repair company could be cited for an OSHA violation by sending an employee into a situation where a hazard exists, even though repairing the problem will make the worksite safer for all the other employees. Here, however, ACR was found to have created the very hazards to which Paisley was exposed. Paisley did not go to the worksite merely to repair defects that arose out of the operation of the crane, but rather, defects that ACR should have identified and corrected before renting out the crane. 3 Our narrow holding today in no way addresses the general issue of whether an employer which exposes its repair workers to hazards created by others can be held liable under the Act. 35 Finally, ACR argues that holding it liable for OSH Act violations under the circumstances of this case would be contrary to public policy and would frustrate the Act's purpose of promoting worker safety, because liability would dissuade lessors from performing repairs. We fail to see, however, how holding the party in the best position to know of any work hazards responsible for exposing its employees to those hazards runs contrary to public policy. At any rate, our review of Commission decisions does not extend to choosing among competing policy options. To the contrary, so long as the path chosen by the Commission is reasonable and consistent with the law--as it was here--we will uphold it. 36 Therefore, we affirm the Commission's findings and penalties with respect to the above-listed citations. 37