Halterman v. Radisson Hotel Corp.
2000 Va. LEXIS 18, 259 Va. 171, 523 S.E.2d 823 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard for multi-employer workplaces, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1200(e)(2), a property owner's duty is to provide hazard information to a contractor's employer, not directly to the contractor's individual employees. A contractor's employee cannot sustain a negligence per se claim against the property owner without evidence that the owner failed to communicate the required information to the contractor's employer.
Facts:
- Radisson Hotel Corporation hired H & H Machine Company (H & H) to repair washing machines in the hotel's laundry room.
- H & H sent its employee, John D. Halterman, Jr., a certified welder, to perform the repairs.
- The hotel used a laundry product, Liquid Lusterfixe, which contained a hazardous chemical, hydrofluosilicic acid.
- Radisson maintained a display unit on the laundry room wall containing material safety data sheets (MSDS) for its products, but no one from Radisson pointed out the unit or directly informed Halterman about the hazardous chemicals.
- While Halterman was welding the machines, he was exposed to residue of Liquid Lusterfixe that had accumulated in the cracks he was repairing.
- The heat from the welding process allegedly turned the chemical residue into a toxic gas.
- As a result of inhaling the gas, Halterman developed acute chemical pneumonitis, which resulted in permanent lung damage (interstitial fibrosis) and a one-third loss of his vital lung capacity.
Procedural Posture:
- John D. Halterman, Jr. filed an amended motion for judgment against Radisson Hotel Corporation in a Virginia trial court.
- The complaint included Count I for negligence per se based on an OSHA violation and Count II for simple negligence.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- At the close of the plaintiff's evidence, the trial court granted Radisson's motion to strike the evidence for the negligence per se claim (Count I).
- The simple negligence claim (Count II) was submitted to the jury.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Radisson on the simple negligence claim.
- The trial court entered a final judgment in favor of Radisson.
- Halterman, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Virginia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an on-site employer's duty under the OSHA 'multi-employer workplaces' regulation (29 C.F.R. § 1910.1200(e)(2)) require it to provide hazard information directly to a contractor's employee, rather than to the contractor's employer?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Keenan
No. The plain language of the OSHA 'multi-employer workplaces' regulation does not obligate an on-site employer like Radisson to communicate hazard information directly to the employee of another employer; the duty is to communicate that information to the other employer. The court analyzed the text of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1200(e)(2), which requires the on-site employer to have methods 'to provide the other employer(s) on-site access to material safety data sheets.' The regulation creates a duty running from Radisson to Halterman's employer, H & H, not to Halterman himself. Since Halterman presented no evidence that Radisson failed to provide the required information to H & H, he failed to prove that Radisson violated the regulation. Therefore, his negligence per se claim fails on the first required element, and it is unnecessary to consider whether he was in the class of persons the regulation was designed to protect.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the chain of responsibility for hazard communication at multi-employer worksites under OSHA regulations. It establishes that a property owner's primary duty is to inform the contractor's management, which is then presumably responsible for warning its own employees. This limits the ability of an independent contractor's employee to bring a direct negligence per se claim against a property owner for failure to warn. Future plaintiffs in similar cases must present evidence that the property owner failed in its duty to communicate with the plaintiff's employer, not just that the plaintiff was not warned individually.
