Opinion ID: 1987358
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Teal adopted.

Text: If this were a workers' compensation claim, it would be a close question whether Hargis was an employee or an independent contractor under the test reiterated most recently in Uninsured Employers' Fund v. Garland, 805 S.W.2d 116 (Ky.1991): The proper legal analysis consists of several tests from Ratliff v. Redmon, 396 S.W.2d 320 (Ky.1965)] and requires consideration of at least four predominant factors: (1) the nature of the work as related to the business generally carried on by the alleged employer; (2) the extent of control exercised by the alleged employer; (3) the professional skill of the alleged employee; and (4) the true intent of the parties. Id. at 118-19. In addition to the facts that Baize dispatched Hargis to pick up Baize's logs and transport them to Baize's place of business on a semi-trailer owned by Baize, are the facts that Hargis had worked exclusively for Baize for six months immediately preceding the accident and, though paid by the board-feet hauled, was paid on a weekly basis, not at the conclusion of each individual trip. Nevertheless, the parties agree that Hargis was an independent contractor (for otherwise, Appellant's complaint would have been summarily dismissed as barred by KRS 342.690(1), the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act). Thus, we now reach the issue that we did not reach in Carman i.e., whether KOSHA's protections extend to workers on the job site other than direct employees of the owner or other person in control of the job site. We conclude, as did the Sixth Circuit in Teal , that KOSHA's protections extend to any employee, including an employee of an independent contractor, who is performing work at another employer's workplace. We adopt Teal 's analysis of the relevant OSHA provisions as our construction of the same provisions replicated in KOSHA, viz: Under the Act, an employer's duty is two-fold: Each employer (1) Shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees; (2) Shall comply with Occupational Safety and Health standards promulgated under this chapter. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 654(a) [KRS 338.031(1)]. The first duty is a general duty imposed on an employer to protect its employees from hazards that are likely to cause death or serious bodily injury. The second duty is a specific duty imposed on employers to comply with the OSHA regulations. . . . . . . The general duty clause was intended by Congress [the General Assembly] to cover unanticipated hazards; Congress [the General Assembly] recognized that it could not anticipate all of the potential hazards that might affect adversely the safety of workers. Accordingly, it enacted the general duty clause to cover serious hazards that were not otherwise covered by specific regulations. Pursuant to Sec. 654(a)(1) [KRS 338.031(1)(a)], every employer owes a duty of reasonable care to protect his employees from recognized hazards that are likely to cause death or serious bodily injury. The protection from exposure to serious hazards is the primary purpose of the general duty clause, and every employer owes this duty regardless of whether it controls the workplace, whether it is responsible for the hazard, or whether it has the best opportunity to abate the hazard. In contrast, Sec. 654(a)(2) [KRS 338.031(1)(b)] is the specific duty provision. The class of employers who owe a duty to comply with the OSHA regulations is defined with reference to control of the workplace and opportunity to comply with the OSHA regulations. Accordingly, an employers' [sic] responsibilities under the Act depend upon which duty provision the employer is accused of breaching. Similarly, the class of persons for whom each of these duty provisions was enacted must be determined with reference to the particular duty in dispute. In this case, Dupont [Baize] is accused of breaching the specific duty imposed on employers by Sec. 654(a)(2)[KRS 338.031(1)(b)]. Accordingly, . . . reliance on the plain language of the general duty clause is misplaced. The very narrow question on appeal does not concern the scope of an employer's general duty to protect employees from exposure to recognized hazards, but rather, the scope of an employer's duty to comply with the specific OSHA regulations. If the special duty provision is logically construed as imposing an obligation on the part of employers to protect all of the employees who work at a particular job site, then the employees of an independent contractor who work on the premises of another employer must be considered members of the class that Sec. 654(a)(2) [KRS 338.031(1)(b)] was intended to protect. In other words, one cannot define the scope of an employer's obligation under Sec. 654(a)(2) [KRS 338.031(1)(b)] as including the protection of another's employees and, at the same time, claim that these other employees are unintended beneficiaries. We believe that Congress [the General Assembly] enacted Sec. 654(a)(2) [KRS 338.031(1)(b)] for the special benefit of all employees, including the employees of an independent contractor, who perform work at another employer's workplace. The specific duty clause represents the primary means for furthering Congress' purpose of assuring so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 651(b). (Emphasis added). The broad remedial nature of the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970 is the Act's primary characteristic. Consistent with the broad remedial nature of the Act, we interpret the scope of intended beneficiaries of the special duty provision in a broad fashion. In our view, once an employer is deemed responsible for complying with OSHA regulations, it is obligated to protect every employee who works at its workplace. Teal, 728 F.2d at 803-05 (internal footnotes and citations omitted). Cf. Brennan v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm'n, 513 F.2d 1032, 1038 (2d Cir.1975) (In a situation where, as here, an employer is in control of an area, and responsible for its maintenance, we hold that to prove a violation of OSHA the Secretary of Labor need only show that a hazard has been committed [sic] and that the area of the hazard was accessible to the employees of the cited employer or those of other employers engaged in a common undertaking. (Emphasis added.)). Similar to the purpose provision in 29 U.S.C. § 651(b), KRS 338.011 provides: [I]t is the purpose and policy of the Commonwealth of Kentucky to promote the safety, health and general welfare of its people by preventing any detriment to the safety and health of all employees, both public and private, covered by this chapter, arising out of exposure to harmful conditions and practices at places of work. . . . Baize asserts that even if Teal would apply to Hargis if he were an employee of an independent contractor, it does not apply to him because Hargis was, in fact, the independent contractor. As illustrated by the analysis in Teal , to draw such a distinction would be ludicrous. Except for providing his own truck, Hargis was performing the same work duties and was exposed to the same work hazards as Baize's own truck-driver employees. As noted by Appellants, if Hargis had incorporated himself and paid himself a salary, as do many independent truckers, he would have been an employee of an independent contractor. He is no less entitled to KOSHA's protections because, technically, he was self-employed. See Angel v. United States, 775 F.2d 132, 133, 135, 144 (6th Cir.1985) (treating a self-employed independent subcontractor as both an employer and an employee under Teal ); Arrington v. Arrington Bros. Const., Inc., 116 Idaho 887, 781 P.2d 224, 228 (1989) (adopting Teal 's reasoning verbatim and holding general contractor liable for independent electrical subcontractor's injuries caused by general contractor's violation of OSHA regulation where subcontractor testified he was the primary employee of his unincorporated electrical business). Baize asserts that the Sixth Circuit subsequently departed from Teal in Ellis v. Chase Communications, Inc., 63 F.3d 473 (6th Cir.1995). We disagree. In Ellis , an employee of an independent painting contractor fell to his death from a communications tower owned by Chase Communications after he unbuckled his safety harness in order to change positions. The Court explained that  Teal . . . merely extends to employees of an independent contractor the same duty owed to one's own employees. Ellis, 63 F.3d at 477-78. The premise for Teal was that the responsible employer had control of the workplace and, therefore, an opportunity to assure compliance with OSHA regulations. Teal, 728 F.2d at 804. In Ellis , however, the tower was not a regular job site on which Chase had a duty to protect its own employees. Ellis, 63 F.3d at 478.