Where does the buck stop? (Theoretically)

[PetrosA]

In a situation where an employee is told to do something non-code compliant, who can be chased (legally or criminally) if something goes wrong at a later date? Would it be pertinent whether the employee knew that the install was compliant or not?

I'm asking this in a new thread, but it was response #4 to the "Your opinions please" thread here in the Safety section that got me thinking about this.

 

[charlietuna]

Makes no difference who did or said anything, the assigned master who qualifies the shop is responsible.

 

[ultramegabob]

Makes no difference who did or said anything, the assigned master who qualifies the shop is responsible.

that may be the case until someone gets killed, and the family hires a lawyer....

 

[iwire]

Where I am if you have a license you are responsible for following the code. A suit would likely go against the company but I would still be criminally responsible if my work kills.

 

[PetrosA]

Where I am if you have a license you are responsible for following the code. A suit would likely go against the company but I would still be criminally responsible if my work kills.

Bob, out of curiosity, let's say that code isn't being conformed to for economic reasons (ex. some key materials aren't purchased or something isn't upgraded properly by code during an install) would that also fall on you if you went through with it or do you have some recourse to "force" the boss to supply the materials you need for a code compliant installation? If not, is your only other option quitting to avoid liability?

 

[nakulak]

I don't think that there is a "one size fits all" answer for your question. Especially since, as has been pointed out, litigation generally goes after anyone and everyone. However, its my opinion that anyone who considers themselves to be "qualified" would have to put their foot down if they percieved a life safety hazard. Its also my opinion that said individual should do everything possible to CYA as much as possible, in case a tragic situation arises.

 

[quogueelectric]

This is especially important in a state where there is no state licencing so the contractor is responsible for everything.

 

[480sparky]

If someone sues, everyone gets served papers. Lawyers cast a wide net. The helper, the JW, the foreman, the super, the company, the GC, the AHJ.... all get caught in the trap. They may well drag the plumber into it for using copper instead of pex.

The legal eagles really don't care who is culpable. They'll let the jury sort that out. All they want is the damages money so they can take their 40%.

 

[Minuteman]

Look for the deep pockets.

 

[iwire]

I agree that there is no one size fits all answer.

As far as civil liability I agree with the others, they throw out a big net and see what they can get from all possible parties.

As far as the criminal side IMO we are individually responsible for our actions, if the boss says "Run 18/2 zip cord from a 50 amp breaker to the range receptacle" and I go ahead and do it I should be held accountable.

Here in MA we have this

141:6. Liability for work of employee

Section 6. No person, firm or corporation holding a certificate A or certificate C shall be liable for work done by his or it's employees, unless it appears that such work was done with his or it's knowledge or consent or by his or it's authorization

(apparently women still do not run companies )

 

[petersonra]

In a situation where an employee is told to do something non-code compliant, who can be chased (legally or criminally) if something goes wrong at a later date? Would it be pertinent whether the employee knew that the install was compliant or not?

I'm asking this in a new thread, but it was response #4 to the "Your opinions please" thread here in the Safety section that got me thinking about this.

Its fairly easy to go after a licensee. Thats an administrative procedure. But most times unless there is something unusual going on, its a slap on the wrist. Whoever is licensed and did not live up to their licesing requirements could potentially be punished administratively.

It would be tough to chase anyone down criminally unless it was really bad. Proving someone committed a crime is not trivial, especially something like this.

Civil liability can be tough for a different reason. Most times there is not enough money involved to make it worthwhile to sue someone over these kind of things, so they escape civil liability.

 

[petersonra]

141:6. Liability for work of employee

Section 6. No person, firm or corporation holding a certificate A or certificate C shall be liable for work done by his or it's employees, unless it appears that such work was done with his or it's knowledge or consent or by his or it's authorization

Is this an administrative rule or a law? If it is a rule, it is pretty much meaningless in court unless there is a similar exemption in the law. It could still provide protection from administrative punishment.

In any case, this is not much protection. If someone used the wrong materials, you could potentially prove the knowledge and consent of the company just by showing the P.O. the company issued for the materials. They can't very well claim they did not know what materials were being used when they bought and paid for them.

 

[pfalcon]

Per the OSHA FAQ: There is no right to refuse to perform work that you deem unsafe. Your employer can terminate you.

Gee, seems like that defeats the purpose of OSHA doesn't it? :grin:

There is a one size fits all answer and it is complex:

Criminally someone must appear to violate a Law, Statue, Ordinance, Regulation. That specific person is the criminal. Any person encouraging, pressuring, assisting the criminal before, during, or after is equally culpable. Civil processes do not require laws, statutes, ordinances, or regulations although their existence will help the plaintiff's case. Intent to perform an act hurts the defendant's case but is not necessarily required.

Criminal prosecution is typically based upon the ability to convict, politics, and the hiding of misconduct.

Civilian proceedings are typically based upon money, money (sic), and spite.

 

[pfalcon]

In a situation where an employee is told to do something non-code compliant, who can be chased (legally or criminally) if something goes wrong at a later date? Would it be pertinent whether the employee knew that the install was compliant or not?

I'm asking this in a new thread, but it was response #4 to the "Your opinions please" thread here in the Safety section that got me thinking about this.

Direct to the OP question:
Your employer may freely fire you for refusing to work.
You may be held criminally liable for doing non-compliant work but it is not likely.
You may be held civilly liable for doing non-compliant work but it is not likely.
Knowledge of non-compliance is not relevant because you will be presumed to have known.

Most likely your employer will be held liable to correct the defect. If injuries are involved then fines may also be imposed.

Your reflection in the mirror will know if you did non-compliant work. Do you value his/her opinion?

 

[charlietuna]

I was involved with an electricution where another contractor's employee did not ground a 120 volt HPS light fixture because it was "TEMPORARY"??? The guy was licensed and he knew it was wrong! "Criminally" it would have to be proven in court that the employee intentionally violated the code with the intent to kill someone. Almost like he was setting up a trap? Almost impossible to prove! The blame goes to the person with the deepest pockets! In this case, the electrical contractor who had liability insurance. The licensing board refused to comment or act on the case because it was going to be lidigated. So the licensing issue ends right there.

 

[480sparky]

I was involved with an electricution where another contractor's employee did not ground a 120 volt HPS light fixture because it was "TEMPORARY"??? The guy was licensed and he knew it was wrong! "Criminally" it would have to be proven in court that the employee intentionally violated the code with the intent to kill someone. Almost like he was setting up a trap? Almost impossible to prove! The blame goes to the person with the deepest pockets! In this case, the electrical contractor who had liability insurance. The licensing board refused to comment or act on the case because it was going to be lidigated. So the licensing issue ends right there.

So who got killed?

 

[iwire]

"Criminally" it would have to be proven in court that the employee intentionally violated the code with the intent to kill someone. Almost like he was setting up a trap? Almost impossible to prove!

Electricians have gone to jail over faulty wiring that has lead to death, certainly not a normal happening but it can happen.

 

[PetrosA]

Per the OSHA FAQ: There is no right to refuse to perform work that you deem unsafe. Your employer can terminate you.
...
Gee, seems like that defeats the purpose of OSHA doesn't it? :grin:

I'm guessing the operative word here is "deem."

From Merriam-Webster:

deem

transitive verb : to come to think or judge : consider <deemed it wise to go slow> intransitive verb : to have an opinion : believe


Ya gotta love relativism

If they mean deem the way the dictionary defines it, that's scary.

Boss: "Take this aluminum extension ladder and bug that service!"
Employee: "Nope"
Boss: "You're fired!"
Or dead, depending on how much he thinks he needs the job

 

[ultramegabob]

Petrosa.....

Petrosa.....

What exactly are you being asked to do that has you this concerned? will this job be inspected?

 

[Smart $]

... "Criminally" it would have to be proven in court that the employee intentionally violated the code with the intent to kill someone. ...

Murder, yes... manslaughter, no.