From: Russell Vernon <russell.vernon**At_Symbol_Here**ucr.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Judge denies three Harran defense motions
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 22:47:50 +0000
Reply-To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Message-ID: BE28425130279043A5B92A2BC7116E230FBE9A27**At_Symbol_Here**EXCH-MBOX-7.exch.ucr.edu
In-Reply-To <013501cea36ae1e53980a5afac80**At_Symbol_Here**endeavourehs.com>


The statute you cite seems to hold the employer criminally responsible - not the supervisor. Do I read that accurately?

Russell Vernon, Ph.D.
Director
Environmental Health & Safety
University of California, Riverside
900 University Ave
Riverside, CA 92521
www.ehs.ucr.edu
russell.vernon**At_Symbol_Here**ucr.edu
Direct (951) 827-5119
Admin (951) 827-5528
Fax (951) 827-5122

Taking a trip overseas?
Access Location Intelligence: https://ermsp.ucop.edu/uctrip and enter your UC Net ID


-----Original Message-----
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU] On Behalf Of Dave Einolf
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 2:18 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Judge denies three Harran defense motions

Russ:

Criminal violations of OSHA requirements is part of the federal statute.
Every state has criminal OSHA violations:

Title 29 U.S.C. 666(e) provides criminal penalties for any employer who willfully violates a safety standard prescribed pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health Act, where that violation causes the death of any employee. Four elements must be proved in order to establish a criminal violation of 29 U.S.C. 666(e). The government must prove that: (1) the defendant is an employer engaged in a business affecting commerce; (2) the employer violated a "standard, rule or order" promulgated pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 665, or any regulation prescribed under the Act; (3) the violation was willful, and (4) the violation caused the death of an employee.

Regards,

Dave

DAVE EINOLF
Managing Director
Endeavour EHS, LLC
4207 SE Woodstock Blvd, Suite 321
Portland OR 97206-6267
www.endeavourehs.com

971.678.8111 (w)
912.717.1533 (fax)
dave**At_Symbol_Here**endeavourehs.com


-----Original Message-----
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU] On Behalf Of Russell Vernon
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 7:41 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Judge denies three Harran defense motions

Assuming this case ends up with a conviction that stands on appeal, I expect a large brain drain out of California...
We have the ONLY state of which I am aware with a law that criminalizes failure to follow occupational health & safety code...

-Russ

Russell Vernon, Ph.D.
Director
Environmental Health & Safety
University of California, Riverside
900 University Ave
Riverside, CA 92521
www.ehs.ucr.edu
russell.vernon**At_Symbol_Here**ucr.edu
Direct (951) 827-5119
Admin (951) 827-5528
Fax (951) 827-5122

Taking a trip overseas?
Access Location Intelligence: https://ermsp.ucop.edu/uctrip and enter your UC Net ID


-----Original Message-----
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU] On Behalf Of Ralph B. Stuart
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 4:27 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: [DCHAS-L] Judge denies three Harran defense motions

http://cenblog.org/the-safety-zone/

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge today denied three defense motions that could have dismissed a criminal case against University of California, Los Angeles, chemistry professor Patrick Harran. With the rulings going against the defense, the case moves closer to trial. The judge set the next court date for Oct. 3. Harran could go to trial within 60 days of that date.

Harran faces four felony charges of violating the state labor code. The charges stem from the death of research assistant Sheharbano (Sheri) Sangji after a 2008 fire in Harran's lab. In November and December, 2012, Judge Lisa B. Lench heard testimony in a preliminary hearing on the case. She ruled in April that there was sufficient evidence to send the case to trial.
After the preliminary hearing, the case was sent to Judge George G. Lomeli for trial.

Before today's hearing, Harran's attorneys submitted three motions: one asking the judge for a so-called Franks hearing, another called a demurrer, and a third to dismiss the charges based on lack of probable cause. The district attorney's office replied to each motion, and the defense then responded in writing to those replies.

More at the site above...

- Ralph

Ralph Stuart CIH
Chemical Hygiene Officer
Department of Environmental Health and Safety Cornell University

rstuart**At_Symbol_Here**cornell.edu

Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post



The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to secretary@dchas.org.
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.