State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC.
228 P.3d 909, 224 Ariz. 173, 579 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 28 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A corporation can be prosecuted under general criminal statutes, such as those for homicide and assault, for workplace deaths and injuries. Specific occupational safety laws, like the Arizona Occupational Safety and Health Act (AOSHA), do not provide an exclusive criminal remedy and do not preempt prosecution under the general criminal code.
Facts:
- Far West Water & Sewer, Inc. ('Far West') owned and operated a sewage treatment facility in Yuma, Arizona.
- Far West's president, Brent Weidman, and its sewage division supervisor, Rex Noll, had extensive industry experience and were aware of the lethal dangers of hydrogen sulfide gas in confined sewage tanks and the applicable OSHA regulations.
- Despite this knowledge, Weidman and Noll failed to implement required safety programs, provide necessary training and equipment, or establish rescue plans for employees entering the tanks.
- Instead, Weidman and Noll created an unwritten and uncommunicated 'clean-hole policy,' believing it obviated the need for OSHA compliance.
- On October 24, 2001, a Far West foreperson, Connie Charles, ordered employee James Gamble to enter an underground tank to remove a plug while raw sewage was actively being pumped into it.
- Gamble was overcome by hydrogen sulfide gas, passed out, and fell into the sewage.
- Fellow employee Nathan Garrett entered the tank to rescue Gamble, was also overcome by gas, and suffered severe, life-threatening injuries.
- Gamble died in the tank, along with a subcontractor's employee, Gary Lanser, who also attempted a rescue.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Arizona indicted Far West in state trial court on charges of manslaughter, aggravated assault, endangerment, and violating a safety regulation causing death.
- Far West filed pre-trial motions to dismiss the general criminal charges, arguing that federal law preempted the prosecution and that the state's specific occupational safety statute provided the exclusive criminal sanction.
- The trial court denied Far West's motions to dismiss.
- The trial court severed the trials of Far West and its president, Brent Weidman.
- A jury acquitted Far West of manslaughter but convicted it of the lesser-included offense of negligent homicide, as well as aggravated assault, endangerment, and violating a safety regulation.
- The trial court imposed a sentence of probation and fines totaling $1,770,000.
- Far West (appellant) appealed its convictions and sentences to the Court of Appeals of Arizona (the intermediate appellate court).
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 Arizona Occupational Safety and Health Act (AOSHA) provide the exclusive criminal penalty for an employer's workplace safety violations that result in an employee's death, thereby precluding prosecution under general criminal statutes like those for negligent homicide and aggravated assault?
Opinions:
Majority - Weisberg, Judge.
No. The Arizona Occupational Safety and Health Act (AOSHA) does not provide the exclusive criminal penalty for an employer's workplace safety violations and does not preclude prosecution under general criminal statutes. The court affirmed that federal OSHA's savings clause explicitly preserves state statutory and common law liabilities, and state criminal laws supplement, rather than conflict with, OSHA's goals. The court reasoned that the specific criminal penalty provision in AOSHA (A.R.S. § 23-418(E)) does not contain the same elements as general criminal offenses like negligent homicide or assault; therefore, where there is no conflict, the state has prosecutorial discretion to charge under either statute. To hold otherwise would render the more specific statute superfluous and effectively immunize employers from liability for egregious conduct that rises to the level of criminal negligence or recklessness, a result the legislature could not have intended. Furthermore, prosecuting Far West for codified offenses like homicide did not violate the abolition of common law crimes, as the pre-existing duty to provide a safe workplace simply provides the basis for the 'omission' element of the statutory crime. A corporation is a 'person' subject to the criminal code, and its liability can be based on the acts and mental states of its high managerial agents.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle of corporate criminal liability for workplace safety failures, establishing that such conduct can be prosecuted under general criminal laws carrying severe penalties, not just specialized occupational safety regulations. It signals that prosecutors can charge corporations with crimes like homicide and assault when the conduct of high-level managers demonstrates a conscious disregard for substantial risks to employee safety. This precedent serves as a significant deterrent, preventing companies from treating regulatory fines as a mere cost of doing business and holding them accountable for conduct that crosses the line from civil to criminal negligence or recklessness.
