Court Opinion

ID: 9470251
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:00:30.72822+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:48.132670
License: Public Domain

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Because I believe that on the morning of the accident Mica’s foreman acted with *434“plain indifference” to an apparent danger, I must dissent. Ronald Stevens’ testimony is uncontradicted that on the morning of the accident a portion of the trench wall had already caved in and that water was present in the trench. Although the foreman testified that on the morning of the accident he believed that the trench was being dug in shale rock, that belief was unreasonable in light of the presence of the cave-in and the water. Those conditions should have put the foreman on notice that the crew was not digging in solid rock and that the trench walls needed support. Furthermore, it is undisputed that Mica did not formally train the foreman in soil recognition or compliance with OSHA standards. Mica may not “fail to properly train and supervise its employees and then hide behind its lack of knowledge concerning their dangerous work practices.” Danco Construction Co. v. Secretary of Labor, 586 F.2d 1243, 1247 (8th Cir.1978) (footnote omitted).