Lexplug logoLexplug

State Ex Rel. Cornellier v. Black

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
425 N.W.2d 21, 144 Wis.2d 745 (1988)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) does not preempt states from prosecuting individuals under general state criminal laws, such as homicide, for conduct that occurs in the workplace and results in an employee's death.


Facts:

  • Larry Cornellier was an officer and the day-to-day director of operations for Pyro Science Development Corporation, a fireworks manufacturer.
  • Cornellier was aware of numerous, substantial fire and explosion hazards at the plant, many of which violated safety standards.
  • A business associate had previously advised Cornellier of safety concerns, describing the plant as 'a disaster' with 'very high' risks.
  • Less than three weeks before the fatal incident, Cornellier was convicted of six safety ordinance violations at another nearby fireworks plant.
  • Cornellier failed to take any steps to correct the known hazards at the Pyro Science plant.
  • On March 23, 1983, an employee plugged a fan into an electrical outlet, which generated sparks.
  • The sparks ignited explosive materials, causing a fire and explosion that killed another employee, Dennis Whitt.

Procedural Posture:

  • Rock County authorities issued a criminal complaint charging Larry Cornellier with homicide by reckless conduct in the state trial court.
  • Cornellier filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state probable cause.
  • The trial court denied the motion to dismiss.
  • Cornellier petitioned the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, for a writ of habeas corpus seeking dismissal of the complaint.
  • The Court of Appeals certified the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the state's highest court.
  • The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied certification and remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals for a decision.

Locked

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 the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) preempt a state from prosecuting a corporate officer under its general homicide statute for a workplace death caused by conditions that also violate OSHA standards?


Opinions:

Majority - Eich, J.

No, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) does not preempt the state's criminal prosecution. The court reasoned that there is a strong presumption against federal preemption, especially in areas of historic state police power, such as enforcing criminal laws. The party claiming preemption must show a 'clear and manifest' congressional purpose to supersede state law. When an activity, like preventing crime, touches interests 'deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility,' preemption requires a 'compelling congressional direction.' The court found no such direction in OSHA. To the contrary, OSHA includes a savings clause stating it shall not 'affect in any other manner the common law or statutory rights, duties, or liabilities of employers.' Furthermore, Wisconsin is not seeking to enforce its own workplace safety standards but is enforcing its general homicide statute, which is a core state function that does not conflict with OSHA's purpose.



Analysis:

This decision is significant for affirming a state's traditional police powers in the face of a comprehensive federal regulatory scheme. It establishes that federal workplace safety regulations like OSHA do not create a shield against state criminal liability for employers or corporate officers whose reckless conduct leads to employee deaths. The ruling reinforces the principle that employers can be held accountable under both federal regulatory law and state criminal law, preventing corporate officers from arguing that OSHA compliance (or non-compliance penalties) is the exclusive remedy for workplace fatalities. This case solidifies the state's role in policing workplace safety through the potent tool of criminal prosecution.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State Ex Rel. Cornellier v. Black (1988)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"