UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PITT-DES MOINES, INC., Defendant-Appellant

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting the structural distinction between 29 U.S.C. i 654(a)(1) and (2), and upholding the multi-employer worksite doctrine in light of the arguable distinction in the terms of the two subsections
• finding OSHA “serious” violation is not admissible because such a mini-trial on the OSHA violation could district and confuse the jury on the main issues of the case and probative value is limited
• “When, as here, a statute or regulation does not implicate the First Amendment rights of a defendant, its vagueness is determined on an ‘as applied’ basis.”
• “[The general duty clause] requires employers to protect their own employees from obvious hazards even when those hazards are not covered by specific safety regulations imposed by [OSHA].”
• OSHA’s general duty clause, § 654(a)(1), “requires employers to protect their own employees from obvious hazards even when those hazards are not covered by specific safety regulations imposed by the Act.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).