Working Safely in Extreme Weather

This week’s question comes from Danny T., who asks:

Q: “I work in construction and a lot of times I work outside in the heat and cold. Other times, when I am in the shack doing paperwork, they keep it way too hot, like 80 degrees. Are there rules about this that I should know — like, can they make me work in the rain, or send me home with no pay if it is too wet to work?”

A: Thanks for your question, Danny.  It is important to know your rights in the workplace.  You didn’t mention whether you were a member of a union but, if you are, the first place to look for answers would be your Collective Bargaining Agreement.  If that doesn’t specify relevant terms, or if you are not a union member, then regulations administered by the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) and federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration would govern your situation.

I will address two issues you raise here: (1) Rules for working outside during weather events; and (2) Temperature requirements in indoor areas.

Working outside, as you know, creates a number of issues related to a worker’s health, safety and comfort, especially when workers are exposed to heat, cold, rain or snow. Heat illness can be deadly. In 2005, California became the first state to adopt a heat illness prevention standard to protect outdoor workers. Under California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 3395, employers are required to provide employees who work outdoors with free and reasonably cool water, a place of shade, cool-down rest breaks, and training on how to recognize and prevent heat illness.  When the heat is more extreme, over 95 degrees, employers must implement special High-Heat procedures to monitor workers.

Cold weather can also present serious dangers to outside workers.  Cal/OSHA recognizes and warns of the dangers cold-stress presents, particularly hypothermia, frostbite and trench-foot.  However, unlike heat, there are no specific standards or requirements employers must follow at either the state or federal level. However, under the General Duty Clause, Section 5(a)(1) of the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act, employers are required to provide their employees with a place of employment that “is free from recognizable hazards that are causing or likely to cause death or serious harm to employees.” California also has a catch-all standard, California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 3203, that requires most employers to establish and implement an effective Injury and Illness Prevention Program (“IIPP”).

These general standards are also applicable to rain and snow.  An employer can require that people work outside in the rain, but if the weather conditions make the outdoor worksite too dangerous, the employer has a responsibility to cease the work.  If the cancellation occurs part way through the work day, you may be entitled to “reporting time pay,” or compensation for 50 percent of the time you had been scheduled to work. This requirement is subject to exceptions for utility failures and “acts of God,” such as earthquakes. Unfortunately, if work is cancelled prior to the start of the work day, there is no obligation to pay affected workers.

There is also no current mandated standard for indoor workplace temperature at either the state or federal level.  The United States Department of Labor does, however, make a recommendation in its technical manual: employers should maintain indoor temperature in the range of 68-76° F, with humidity in the range of 20 percent — 60 percent.  The Cal/OSHA appeals board has also upheld citations against warehouse operators whose prevention program failed to address indoor temperature regulation, leading to employee injury. (National Distribution Center, Cal/OSHA App. 12-R6D2-0391, 12-R6D2-0378, Decision After Reconsideration (Oct. 5, 2015)).

The concern over the lack of specific rules for indoor workers is increasing.  In 2016, then Gov. Brown signed a bill directing Cal/OSHA to draft and propose standards for indoor worksites “that minimizes heat-related illness and injury among workers working in indoor places of employment.”  A draft standard was circulated to Advisory Committees in October of last year that proposed requiring employers, when indoor workplaces rise above 82 degrees, to provide cool-down places, make policies requiring or providing appropriate clothing, and implement training and a heat-illness plan.  However, this standard has not yet been enacted.

If you are ever asked to work in an environment that is unsafe, it is a good idea to document your opposition in writing to your employer and Cal/OSHA. The law protects workers who oppose unsafe working conditions: California Labor Code 6310 makes it unlawful for an employer to retaliate against a worker who makes this type of complaint.  If you do suffer retaliation for opposing an unsafe work environment, immediately reach out to a quality employment lawyer, such as those at Dolan Law Firm, PC.

read more

If you’re in the stands, keep your eye on the ball

This week’s question coincides with baseball season, which is the perfect time of year for me to remind readers of an important legal issue relating to their enjoyment of America’s pastime:

Q: “Who is responsible if someone gets hit with a line drive, foul ball or broken bat while watching a game?”

A: As a lawyer — and a big Giants fan — I like to start off the season by reminding people to put down your cellphone and keep your eye on the ball during play. A distraction can lead to serious and even life-threatening injury.

 

Balls and bats leaving the playing field and entering the stands are not uncommon. Indeed, Bloomberg reported in 2014 that roughly 1,750 spectators a year are injured by batted balls at all of the major league ballparks throughout the United States. The study showed spectators were much more likely to be hit with an errant ball than a player was to be hit with a pitch. While most injuries, thankfully, are minor, there are reports of severe injuries and even death due the use of wooden bats and presence of 90 mph fastballs.

In a 2015 Boston Globe article, baseball statistician Edwin Comber said about 73 percent of foul balls go into the stands. A 2000 lawsuit against the Boston Red Sox revealed that during a five-year period in the 1990s, 36 to 53 fans per year were hit by balls outside the field of play. Indeed, there have been reports of serious head injuries, skull fractures and even brain injuries as a result of bats and balls entering the stands.

As fans demand to be ever-closer to the action, and as high-priced seats are moved closer to the field, the risk of injury goes up — just as fast as the price.

The issue of liability for fans’ injuries was addressed by the California Supreme Court in 1935, in the case of Quinn v. Recreation Park Ass’n. The court held that one of the natural risks assumed by fans attending major league games is that of being struck by batted or thrown balls. The court ruled the franchise and/or park owner/operator is not required, nor does it undertake, to insure patrons against injury from such source. All that is required is the exercise of ordinary care to protect patrons against such injuries. Management is not obliged to make each seat safe from flying balls. The court pointed out that many patrons prefer to sit where their view is not obscured by a screen. The duty imposed by law is performed when screened seats are provided for as many as may be reasonably expected to call for them on any ordinary occasion and if a spectator chooses to occupy an unscreened seat or is unable to buy a screened seat and chooses to occupy one that is not protected, she/he “assumes the risk of being struck by thrown or batted balls; and, if injured thereby, is precluded from recovering damages therefore.”

In Neinstein v. Los Angeles Dodgers Inc. (1985), the Court of Appeals held “the quality of a spectator’s experience in witnessing a baseball game depends on his or her proximity to the field of play and the clarity of the view, not to mention the price of the ticket. As we see it, to permit a plaintiff to recover under the circumstances here would force baseball stadium owners to do one of two things: One, place all spectator areas behind a protective screen, thereby reducing the quality of everyone’s view and changing the very nature of the game, since players are often able to reach into the spectator area to catch foul balls; or two, continue the status quo and increase the price of tickets to cover the cost of compensating injured persons with the result that persons of meager means might be “priced out” of enjoying the great American pastime.

To me, neither alternative is acceptable. It is not the role of the courts to effect a wholesale remodeling of a revered American institution through application of the tort law. This decision was in line with one handed down in Ratcliff v. San Diego Baseball Club of Pacific Coast League (1938), in which the Court of Appeals held that a spectator who voluntarily occupies an unprotected seat assumes the risk of being struck by thrown or batted balls.

As with almost everything, there are some exceptions in this line of legal reasoning. For example, the courts have held that a franchise may be held liable for injury that occurred while a mascot distracted a fan during play, resulting in a fly ball to the face. (Lowe v. California League of Prof. Baseball (1997). No one is liable for a bat that inadvertently gets loose if the park owners have provided some areas of protected seating and have adequately screened the areas most likely to be at risk of flying balls and bats.

Just remember: The nosebleed seats may prevent you from getting a bloody nose.

read more

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CLAIM FILED AGAINST U.S. GOVERNMENT FOR TRANSGENDER IMMIGRANT’S DEATH

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CLAIM FILED AGAINST U.S. GOVERNMENT FOR TRANSGENDER IMMIGRANT’S DEATH

PRESS CONFERENCE: June 12, 2019, 1:00 p.m., Dolan Law Firm, 1438 Market Street, San Francisco, CA.

On June 11, 2019, the family of Johana Medina Leon filed a claim against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security for denying her civil rights and thereby causing her death while she was being detained after crossing into the United States. In December of 2018, Johana, an El Salvadorian National, was threatened with physical violence based on her transgender status. She fled El Salvador in fear for her life to Mexico where she received a Humanitarian Visa. With her visa she traveled to an asylum center in Juarez, Mexico. While in Juarez, Johana was assigned a number for an appointment with the Customs and Boarder Control, ICE and the Department of Homeland Security where she sought asylum. Her fear of persecution was found to be credible and she was detained pending a hearing. Although she was given a court date, The CPB questioned her transgender status, as she had male genitalia, and housed her with males. Unlike other transwomen, she was not paroled pending a future court date and was, instead, sent to the ICE Otero County Processing Center in New Mexico.

Soon after arriving at Otero, Johana’s health rapidly deteriorated. Having been trained and employed as a nurse in El Salvador, she recognized that she needed IV fluids but her request for treatment was denied. She asked for water, sugar and salt so she could prepare her own IV but that request too was denied. In April and May Johana’s condition got progressively worse and, since she was being denied care, she asked to be deported so she could receive treatment. Her request was ignored, and her condition continued to deteriorate. On May 15, 2019, Johana appeared before a U.S. Magistrate to present her case for asylum where she was told that she would receive a decision in 8 days, and she was returned to ICE custody. On May 20th she spoke with her boyfriend in El Salvador and reported that her requests for treatment had been denied. On May 23 or 24, 2019, Johana was found unconscious and was taken by ICE to the Del Sol Medical Center Hospital in El Paso, TX. ICE apparently granted her release on her own recognizance right before she was dropped at the hospital. Over the next several days, Johana spoke with her boyfriend and family members reporting that her condition was worsening. On June 1, 2019, Johana’s family was notified that she had died as a result of pneumonia.

Johana’s family claims that the Government, in violation of Johana’s civil rights, negligently managed her care because of her nationality, her seeking asylum, and her transgender status; thereby causing her death.

Christopher Dolan, the family’s attorney, based in California, stated :“On the Statue of Liberty there is a famous poem by Emma Lazarus, known by all Americans, which states in part, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me . . .” The Trump Administration seems to have re- written the poem, to say “. . .and I will send them back abused, terrorized and dead.” Johana deserved to be protected by this Country as a human being seeking asylum. Instead, she was detained, humiliated, mistreated, and dumped at a hospital where she was not on the threshold of liberty; but, instead, on death’s door. We will get to the truth and hold this Government accountable for its callous disregard of Johana.

A representative of Johana’s family will be present via Skype, from El Salvador, to answer questions.

FOR INFORMATION CONTACT CHRIS DOLAN at 415-279-2604 or presscontact@dolanlawfirm.com

For access to the press conference via video conference go to: https://zoom.us/j/878557725

read more

The battle between robots and humans

This week’s question comes from Aimee F. in Seacliff, who asks,

Q: “I read in last week’s paper that Amazon and other companies are developing robots which will be delivering packages door to door. They look like big ice-chests on wheels. This makes me concerned. My elderly mother does not see well but walks alone between her house and the grocery store. I am afraid she wouldn’t see one of these robots, as it is the last thing she would expect to come across on the sidewalk. If someone gets hit or falls over because of one of these robots, who would be held responsible?”

A: Thanks for your question, Aimee. As you read, Amazon recently publicized that it would be testing ”Scout,” its delivery robot, in Snohomish County, Washington, for delivery of expedited orders (same day to two day) to its Prime members. Designed for the “last mile” of the delivery cycle, the robots will travel to residences using sidewalks. For the near future, the robots will only deliver during daylight and must be accompanied by humans who can intervene if a robot does not navigate well around pets, toys, kids, cars, pedestrians, etc.

Amazon is not the first company to venture into robot delivery. In 2014, a San Francisco company called Starship, founded by the founders of Skype, introduced its robot delivery service, which now boasts over 100,000 km of ground covered and 30,000 deliveries. Both Starship and Kiwi, a company founded in Berkeley in 2017, have launched pilot robotic delivery services to students on college campuses around the country. Marble, another San Francisco company founded in 2015, makes food deliveries for Eat24 in the Potrero and Mission Neighborhoods. Postmates has also been developing a robot, Serve, with a mission to “respect cities, meet customer demands, and help local businesses sell even more.”

In December 2017, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed Ordinance 244-17, amending Public Works Code Section 794. Originally, the ordinance was drafted as an outright ban on robotic delivery vehicles, also known as Automated Delivery Devices (“ADD”). The prohibition failed to secure the required number of votes, so it was replaced by a permitting process that allows testing of up to 9 ADD’s total at any one time, with no single company having more than 3 on the road. Testing has been limited to certain neighborhoods in zoning districts designated for Production, Design and Repair (“PDR”) and ADDs are restricted to traveling no more than 3 miles per hour with human accompaniment at all times.

As to your question: what does the law say about responsibility for injuries caused by ADDs? California law provides that an injured bystander like your mother may bring suit for her injuries under negligence or strict products liability claims. Strict products liability would be brought against the designer and manufacturer of the robot, as well as the permit holder, alleging the robots are defective and dangerous due to their design and/or manufacturing process. For instance, an injured party could argue that, given that ADDs are below waist-height (for the most part), a reasonable person would not expect such a novel and diminutive vehicle on the sidewalk or crossing the road, any design lacking a conspicuous marking such as a flag or some other item would cause unlawful danger to pedestrians and motorists.

An injured party could also sue under negligence law to hold an ADD’s permit holder accountable for making sure the robot functions in a reasonably safe manner. Therefore, the permit holder would be liable for any harms caused by the robot if its actions do not meet this “reasonably safe” standard. There is no developed case law so far directly involving ADDS, so the most analogous decisions would be those evaluating the behavior of pedestrians, bikes, skateboards, etc. One thing yet to be worked out, is whether the permit holder would have to provide the data collected by the robots’ myriad sensors to a party claiming injury due to the alleged negligent operation of the ADD.

While the exact nature of injuries, claims and lawsuits from this new technology is yet to be determined, odds are, unfortunately, that someone will be hurt or killed. I wrote in 2012 about the inevitability of Uber’s systems and drivers causing injury or death, a prediction that manifested tragically with the death of 7 year old Sophia Liu whose family I represented in the first wrongful death lawsuit in Uber’s history. Sophia’s family and I went to Sacramento and helped pass a bill that requires Uber to carry a million dollars in insurance. I hope that, in this case, the companies are more deliberate and resolve issues concerning liability and insurance before the inevitable moment when someone is hurt or killed.

read more