Court Opinion

ID: 9716749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:50:05.133089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:48.695784
License: Public Domain

N. PATRICK CROOKS, J.
¶ 29. (concurring). I join the majority opinion, but I write separately to highlight the fact that courts in other jurisdictions have taken positions similar to the reasoning of the majority in this case.
¶ 30. The approach that is most logical and remains true to the intent of the statute and the administrative code, is one that applies the safety regulation to the workplace, irrespective of whose employees Eire working there.
¶ 31. As noted, courts from other jurisdictions have consistently endorsed the idea that state statutes incorporating federal safety regulations apply to places, not people. Teal v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 728 F.2d 799, 805 (6th Cir. 1984) ("[Ojnce an employer is deemed responsible for complying with OSHA regulations, it is obligated to protect every employee who works at its workplace."); Hargis v. Baize, 168 S.W.3d 36, 44 (Ky. 2005) (where defendant's violation of specific OSHA-derived regulation caused death, the deceased plaintiff was "no less entitled to [state SEifety regulations'] protections" based on the fact that he was not the defendant's employee); Goucher v. J.R. Simplot Co., *645709 P.2d 774, 780 (Wash. 1985) ("WISHA regulations should be construed to protect not only an employer's own employees, but all employees who may be harmed by the employer's violation of the regulations."). One court stated the rationale for refusing to quibble, where OSHA safety regulations are concerned, about whether the worker injured or killed was owed a particular duty at the site involved:
[T]he point of this "multi-employer" gloss is that since the contractor is subject to OSHA's regulations of safety in construction by virtue of being engaged in the construction business, and has to comply with those regulations in order to protect his own workers at the site, it is sensible to think of him as assuming the same duty to the other workers at the site who might be injured or killed if he violated the regulations.
United States v. MYR Group, Inc., 361 F.3d 364, 366 (7th Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added).
¶ 32. Rulings based on the idea that safety regulations are promulgated to apply to a place, not a person, are eminently sensible. Here, the relevant regulations mandate compliance with protections concerning occupational safety equivalent to federal OSHA requirements for "all places of employment and public buildings[.]" Once it has been determined that a statute or regulation imposes a ministerial duty, as we determine here in agreement with the court of appeals, the inquiry should be at an end. The employment status (public or private) of the person injured or killed as a result of a failure to comply with that duty is simply irrelevant to the analysis.
¶ 33. We find in Wis. Stat. § 101.055 and Wis. Admin. Code §§ Comm 32.001, 32.002, 32.15 and 32.50 no indication that the legislature intended any limita*646tion when it adopted the measure extending OSHA safety regulations to "all public buildings"; a holding to the contrary would result in unwarranted disparate treatment for similarly situated injured or deceased persons and would simply be unfair.
¶ 34. A public building that is safe for public employees must be safe for everyone, including employees of a private firm. Indeed, the statute also provides that "[t]he department. . . shall plan and conduct comprehensive safety and health loss prevention programs for state employees and facilities." Wis. Stat. § 101.055(9) (emphasis added). It would seem to go without saying that the legislature intended for public buildings and facilities to be safe for the public, including public employees and employees of a private employer as well. To say otherwise flies in the face of common sense.
¶ 35. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully concur.
¶ 36. I am authorized to state that Justice DAVID T. PROSSER joins this concurrence.