Austin Bridge and Road, L.P.

Plain-English summary

An Austin Bridge crew installed concrete traffic barriers using a truck crane parked close behind a flatbed trailer. The crane carrier was inadvertently left in reverse and moved backward, fatally crushing one employee and injuring another. OSHA alleged that employees should have been kept out of the space between the parked vehicles and that connection hardware should have been stored elsewhere. The judge found that the evidence showed industry recognition of hazards while equipment was backing, but not a recognized crushing hazard after the crane was parked with its brakes engaged. Because OSHA did not prove recognized hazard or recognized abatement before the accident, the general duty clause item was vacated.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1)
• Outcome: The serious general duty clause citation was vacated.
• Key point: A feasible precaution identified with hindsight did not establish that knowledgeable industry members recognized it as necessary before the incident.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

                                                  United States of America
                     OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
                                              1244 Speer Boulevard, Room 250
                                                Denver, Colorado 80204-3582

Phone: (303) 844-3409 Fax: (303) 844-3759

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Co mpla inant,

                              v.                                    OSHRC DOCKET NO. 05-1376

AUSTIN BRIDGE AND ROAD, L.P., and its
successors,
Resp ond ent.

APPEARANCES:

      For the Co mpla inant:
               Da nielle Jab erg, E sq., Carlton Jackson, Esq., U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, Dallas, Texas

      For the Re spo nde nt:
               Steven R . McC own, Esq ., Jason R. D ugas, Esq., Littler M endelson , Dallas, Te xas

Before: Administrative Law Judge: James H. Barkley

                                            DECISION AND ORDER

      This proceeding arises under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. Section

651-678; hereafter called the “Act”).
At all times relevant to this action, Respondent, Austin Bridge and Road, L.P. (Austin Bridge) was
installing concrete traffic barriers along I-30 in Dallas, Texas. Austin Bridge admits it is an employer
engaged in a business affecting commerce, and is therefore subject to the requirements of the Act.
On February 20, 2005, one Austin Bridge employee was killed and another injured when the two
were crushed between a stationary flatbed truck trailer and truck mounted crane. Upon learning of the
accident, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) initiated an investigation of the
incident. As a result of that investigation, OSHA issued a citation to Austin Bridge alleging violation of
§5(a)(1) of the Act. By filing a timely notice of contest Austin Bridge brought this proceeding before the
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Commission). A hearing was held in Arlington,
Texas on May 10, 2006. During the hearing, the Secretary was granted leave to amend her complaint (Tr.
9, 175). Briefs have been submitted on the issues, as amended, and this matter is ready for disposition.
Alleged Violation of §5(a)(1)
 Serious Citation 1, item 1 alleges:
Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: The employer did not furnish
employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or
likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were exposed to the Hazard
of being crushed between a Link-Belt HTC-860 60-ton crane carrier and a 45 foot flatbed trailer due to not
being warned of the hazards.

At the State Hwy 12 loop expansion project located at: I-30 and State Hwy 12 Loop, Dallas, Texas 75063.

On or about February 20, 2005, at least five employees walking and working near or next to a Link-Belt
HTC-860 60-ton Hydraulic Truck Crane and a 45 foot flatbed combination tractor trailer while erecting
a concrete traffic barrier wall, were not protected from the hazards of being caught in-between the Crane
carrier and the flatbed trailer.

AMONG OTHER METHODS, A RECOGNIZED AND FEASIBLE MEANS OF ABATEMENT TO
CORRECT THIS HAZARD INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO:

1) Designate a storage area outside of the hazard area for the retrieval of connection bolts, nuts and angle
iron by the employees;

Facts
Sammy Vaughn is a crane operator with 25 years of experience (Tr. 38). During the week prior
to February 20, 2005, Vaughn, who was an employee of Maxim Crane, was working with Austin Bridge,
operating a 60-ton Link-Belt 860 truck crane, which Austin Bridge leased from Maxim (Tr. 38-39).
Vaughn was setting 1-1/2 miles of 30-foot concrete traffic barriers (CTB) along Loop 12 at I-30 for Austin
Bridge (Tr. 40, 43, 60, 122-23). Vaughn sat in the crane cab at the rear of the carrier as it backed along
the inside shoulder of the highway behind an 18 wheel flatbed tractor trailer loaded with the CTBs (Tr. 41­
42, 62; Exh. C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6).
Each time the flatbed trailer moved forward, Jack Kemp, Austin Bridge’s foreman, backed the
crane carrier up to within 18-24 inches of the flatbed trailer’s back end (Tr. 42, 130-31). Because the same
engine powers both the crane carrier and the crane, the motor continues to run when the carrier is stationary
(Tr. 66, 90). After moving the crane, Kemp shifted the carrier into neutral and engaged the air brakes
before leaving the carrier’s cab (Tr. 66, 71). He then moved to a one-ton service truck equipped with a
light tower, and drove it along the inside lane of the highway, where it was protected by orange traffic
barrels, until it was alongside the other equipment (Tr. 41-42, 60, 62; Exh. C-1).
David Alvarado, an Austin Bridge employee, was stationed on the flatbed trailer (Tr. 133-34).
Enrique Lopez, another Austin Bridge employee, was positioned on the ground to Vaughn’s right (Tr. 43­
44, 86, 123, 130; Exh. C-1). Each time the crane carrier stopped and the air-brakes were engaged, Lopez

                                                 2

signaled Vaughn to pick up a CTB with the crane (Tr. 43-45, 54). Vaughn moved the boom over the load
on the flatbed, and Alvarado attached a CTB to the boom’s clamp (Tr. 43-44). The weight of the CTB on
the boom engaged the outriggers, which remained extended throughout the entire operations (Tr. 90).
Vaughn picked the CTB from the back of the flatbed and placed it on the road between the inside lane and
the shoulder. While Lopez and the rest of Austin Bridge’s crew aligned and attached the CTB (Tr. 45,
125), the 18 wheeler moved forward. Lopez then signaled to Kemp, who had returned to the cab of the
carrier, to back the crane again to within 18-24 inches of the flatbed’s new position (Tr. 42, 130-31).
While the crew was unloading and positioning the next CTB, Kemp would hop over the traffic barriers,
and move the service truck to the new position (Tr. 42, 44-45).
In addition to acting as signalman for both Kemp and Vaughn, Lopez helped align the CTB and
retrieved the bolts that were used to tie the barriers together (Tr. 125). The CTB was placed between two
pieces of angle iron that were attached to the previously installed CTB (Tr. 45; Exh. C-7). Jose Delgado,
an Austin Bridge employee, retrieved the angle iron from the side of the crane where the outriggers were
located (Tr. 47-48). At Kemp’s direction, the nuts and bolts used to attach the angle iron to the CTBs had
been removed from the service truck and stored on top of a tool box mounted to the back of the crane (Tr.
46-47, 82, 84, 110, 125; Exh. C-8, C-9, C-10). Lopez retrieved the nuts and bolts while standing on an iron
step mounted to the back of the crane and passed the bolts to Delgado (Tr. 105, 125; Exh. C-8, C-9).
Lopez and Delgado then slid the bolts through the angle iron and the CTB. The remaining crew members,
Mateo Hernandez and Juan Alvarado, started nuts on the bolts, and tightened them with an impact wrench
(Tr. 45, 86-87, 103, 109-10; Exh. C-1).
At some point on February 20, 2005, after moving the carrier, Kemp set the air brakes, which
signaled Vaughn to start picking up a CTB (55-56, 90-91). Kemp, however, had inadvertently left the
crane in reverse instead of neutral (Tr. 71). Lopez was standing on the step handing bolts to Mateo
Hernandez, who was standing on the ground directly behind him, when the crane lurched backwards (Tr.
55-56, 128, 130). The movement occurred either when Kemp took his foot off the clutch, or when Vaughn
attempted to move the boom, engaging the crane’s throttle, which was still directing power to the carrier
(Tr. 66, 68-71, 91, 151-52, 208). The crane fatally crushed Hernandez against the flatbed trailer; Lopez
sustained injuries to his back and both knees (Tr. 130).
Vaughn testified that even when the crane is stationary there is a “pinchpoint” between the crane
carrier and the flatbed (Tr. 63-64, 72). Because of the Link-Belt 860's lifting capacity, the crane carrier
had to be close to the flatbed to safely pick the CTB (Tr. 69). However, some movement of the crane is
natural as the operator lifts a heavy object (Tr. 72). The flatbed will also move somewhat as the object is

                                                3

removed (Tr. 72). Therefore, the operator left 18 to 24 inches between the two pieces of equipment to
provide a buffer zone (Tr. 73). According to Vaughn, there was always a possibility that a person standing
in the close quarters between the crane carrier and the flatbed could be caught between the two (Tr. 72).
For instance, the crane carrier could roll back when the carrier operator releases the brake (Tr. 73). Vaughn
testified that the “pinchpoint” hazard is “a given” on any job, and that it is hazardous to be in any
pinchpoint, including the area between the crane and the flatbed trailer (Tr. 63, 76-77, 89).
Vaughn testified that he warned Jack Kemp and Lopez to keep employees out of the area between
the flatbed and the crane carrier (Tr. 53, 63, 65, 87). According to Vaughn, Hernandez had attempted to
use the area as a pass through and was told to stay out of it (Tr. 53, 76, 79). During his initial interview,
however, Vaughn did not tell OSHA Compliance Officer Jack Rector he warned Austin Bridge employees
about the crushing hazard between the crane and the flatbed trailer (Tr. 75). Moreover, though Vaughn
claimed to have warned Lopez away from the zone of danger associated with the pinchpoint, he knew
Lopez generally stood on the step at the back of the crane between the crane and the flatbed to retrieve his
bolts (Tr. 65). More specifically, Vaughn saw Lopez there during the lift which ended in the fatal accident
(Tr. 55-56). Vaughn testified that Lopez, even though standing directly between the crane and the flatbed
on a step at the rear of the crane, did not appear to be in the zone of danger created by the “pinchpoint”
between the carrier and the flatbed (Tr. 64, 92).
Upon further questioning, Vaughn changed his testimony, stating that the only employee he saw
during the last pick came up over the outriggers to get the bolts (Tr. 80, 91). Vaughn claimed he did not
see Hernandez come behind the crane because “he was bent down” (Tr. 93). Finally he testified that from
his position in the crane cab, he could not tell whether Lopez was standing on the step or on the outrigger
at the side of the crane (Tr. 98). Delgado, atop the flatbed testified that he saw Hernandez grabbing nuts
and bolts between the crane and the flatbed (Tr. 140-41).
Alvarado, Delgado and Lopez all testified that they were told not to get between the crane and the
flatbed trailer while the crane was in motion (Tr. 120, 124, 142). None of them, however, were told to stay
out of the 1-1/2 to 2 foot area between the equipment once the crane was parked (Tr. 120, 124, 142). Once
the crane had stopped moving Lopez had to access the bolts stored on the crane from the area between the
crane and the flatbed trailer (Tr. 84, 125-27). Lopez always used the step on the back of the crane to access
the bolts. He was never instructed to climb the outriggers to retrieve them from the side of the crane (Tr.
85, 88, 126).
Rector, who is also a certified crane inspector (Tr. 146-49), introduced the operator’s maintenance
manual for the Link-Belt crane (Tr. 154; Exh. R-26). The manual instructs the operator to “Always look

                                                 4

before you back up or better yet, post a signalman to guide you.” (Exh. R-26, p. 45 of 305). Rector
admitted that the manual only recognizes a potential hazard when the operator is backing the equipment
(Tr. 156). Complainant’s Exhibit C-12, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
publication, Building Safer Highway Work Zones: Measures to Prevent Worker Injuries from Vehicles
and Equipment suggests that:
Road builders and maintainers can:
* * *
• Design the workspace to eliminate or decrease backing into blind spots. . . .

(Exh. C-12, p. 22). Rector testified the publication demonstrates that NIOSH recognizes a hazard during
backing, and so warns operators not to back into areas where there is a potential for hitting or crushing
employees working on foot (Tr. 157). Finally, Rector relied on The Association of Equipment
Manufacturers’ safety manual, which states “Never travel a machine on a job site, in a congested area, or
around people, without a signal person to guide you. . . . Watch for narrow spots and low clearances. Use
a signal person when maneuvering in tight quarters and/or clearances are close.” (Exh. R-10, p. 2 of 2).
Again Rector testified that the hazard recognized was that of the operator backing equipment into
employees working on the ground (Tr. 158-59).
Discussion
In order to prove a violation of section 5(a)(1) of the Act, the Secretary must show that: (1) a
condition or activity in the workplace presented a hazard to an employee, (2) the hazard was recognized,
(3) the hazard was likely to cause death or serious physical harm, and (4) a feasible means existed to
eliminate or materially reduce the hazard. The evidence must show that the employer knew, or with the
exercise of reasonable diligence could have known, of the violative conditions. Tampa Shipyards, Inc., 15
BNA OSHC 1533, 1991-93 CCH OSHD ¶29,617 (Nos. 86-360, 86-469, 1992). A recognized hazard may
be a practice, procedure or condition under the employers' control that is known to be hazardous either
constructively, i.e. by the industry in general, or actually, by the cited employer in particular. Pelron
Corporation, 12 BNA OSHC 1833, 1986 CCH OSHD ¶27,605 (No. 82-388, 1986). See also; Coleco
Industries, Inc., 14 BNA OSHC 1961, 1991 CCH OSHD ¶29,200 (No. 84-546, 1991) [Advisory (ANSI)
standards may establish industry recognition]. In order to show an abatement measure's feasibility, the
Secretary must show only that such precautions are recognized by “knowledgeable persons familiar with
the industry as necessary and valuable steps for a sound safety program in the particular circumstances
existing at the employer's worksite.” Cerro Metal Products Division, Marmon Group, Inc.12 BNA OSHC
1821, 1986 CCH OSHD ¶27,579 (No. 78-5159, 1986).

                                               5

The questions arising in this case are: 1) whether there is a recognized crushing hazard between
a parked vehicle and an operating crane after the crane’s carrier has stopped moving and its air brakes have
been engaged; and 2) whether removing the connecting nuts and bolts for the CTB’s from the storage area
on the back of the crane would have eliminated or materially reduced this hazard.
On this record it is clear that: 1) While the crane industry clearly recognizes the hazard of being
crushed in the area behind a backing crane, it does not similarly recognize a crushing hazard between two
parked vehicles; and 2) While, in retrospect, it is clear that this accident may have been averted had the
CTB hardware been stored elsewhere, the Secretary has not shown that, prior to this accident, a
knowledgeable person familiar with the highway construction industry would have recommended the
storage of hardware somewhere other than on the back of the Link-Belt crane in order to minimize
employee exposure to the crushing hazard.
Rector testified that the danger of being crushed between the crane carrier and the flatbed was an
obvious hazard, and was implicitly recognized by both this crane’s manufacturer and in the highway
construction industry (Tr. 150-54, 197-98). The evidence, however, does not support Rector’s conclusion.
None of the industry literature mentions a crushing hazard between parked vehicles. At the hearing, Rector
admitted that Austin Bridge’s safety instructions, warning employees not to get behind the crane while it
was backing up, and its use of a signalman on the ground to alert employees when the air brakes were set
and they could go back to work, were consistent with both NIOSH and the manufacturer’s recommended
practices (Tr. 178, 185-87). Nothing in the industry recommendations prohibits storing materials on a
crane, or working between a parked crane and another fixed object (Tr. 189, 192). Further, Rector testified
that, in his opinion, it is safe to work on foot around an operating crane as long as the crane is stopped,
parked, and the outriggers are in place (Tr. 187). Neither he nor Vaughn had ever heard of a crane lurching
backwards as a result of being left in gear rather than in neutral (Tr. 71, 188).
As nothing in the literature presented establishes industry recognition of a crushing hazard
associated with a parked crane, Complainant’s entire case rests upon the operator’s testimony that he both
recognized the hazard and warned Jack Kemp of the hazard. Vaughn’s hearing testimony constantly
shifted, was full of internal inconsistencies, and can be accorded little weight. During the original OSHA
investigation Vaughn failed to tell CO Rector that he warned Kemp about a crushing hazard between the
parked vehicles. Vaughn first discussed cautioning Kemp a week before the hearing, while discussing his
testimony with Complainant’s counsel (Tr. 75). Nor did Vaughn’s actions on the worksite conform to his
alleged recognition of a hazard. Vaughn testified the area between the parked crane and the flatbed formed
a recognized “pinchpoint,” and stated he warned Kemp to keep employees out of the area. Yet he knew

                                                 6

Austin’s hardware was stored on the back of his crane and was accessible only from there. He saw Lopez
climb up on the step at the back of the crane to retrieve hardware every time the crane stopped. His
testimony and the location of his cab make clear that he watched Lopez each time he entered the
“pinchpoint” to retrieve hardware and was unconcerned about it. Though, later in his testimony, Vaughn
stated that Austin employees may have been coming over the outriggers to collect their hardware, it is clear
that Vaughn knew Lopez was working in the “pinchpoint” between every lift.
Clearly Vaughn did not believe that the area between the parked crane and the flatbed was a
“pinchpoint” constituting a recognized hazard prior to the accident. Moreover, according to Rector, in the
crane industry, “pinchpoint” is a term of art referring to any area where it is possible to be caught between
a moving and stationary parts of the crane (Tr. 192). The Operator’s & Maintenance Manuel for the Link-
Belt crane states “Pinch points, which result from relative motion between mechanical parts can cause
injury. Keep clear of rotating upper of moving parts.” (Exh. R-26 p. 50 of 305). Thus, Vaughn’s testimony
that “pinchpoint” hazards are a “given” on any job is meaningless in this context.
Complainant has not established industry recognition of the cited crushing hazard, nor has it
established Austin’s actual knowledge of a hazard. Rector’s testimony that Austin Bridge’s foreman, Jack
Kemp, had actual knowledge of the violation, was based solely on the hearing testimony of Sammy
Vaughn (Tr. 163-182). Prior to the hearing Rector had no reason to believe that Kemp had actual
knowledge of any crushing hazard (Tr. 182, 184). Kemp did not confirm Vaughn’s story during his
interview with Rector. He was not called to the stand as a witness for Complainant. None of the
employees testifying for Complainant supported Vaughn’s story, i.e., that he warned Kemp to keep
employees out of the area between the flatbed and the crane at all times. Rather, each employee testified
that they were warned to stay out of the area only while the crane was backing. Once Lopez gave the all
clear signal, indicating the crane was parked, they believed it was safe to go back to work around the crane.
None were told not to enter the area between the flatbed and the crane after the air brakes were engaged
on the crane.
In conclusion, on this record, it cannot be concluded that, prior to this incident, either the industry
or the Respondent recognized a crushing hazard associated with working behind an operating crane that
is parked. That the crane was inadvertently left in reverse was due to an unforseen operator error, which,
to CO Rector’s knowledge had not occurred before. With the benefit of hindsight, it appears that, by

                                                 7

taking the simple and feasible step of storing the CTB hardware elsewhere,1 this accident could have been
avoided. However, nothing in this record suggests that, prior to this accident, safety personnel familiar
with the crane industry would have recognized such a step as necessary for a sound safety program in the
circumstances existing at Austin’s worksite.
The Secretary failed to make her prima facie case, and this matter must be dismissed.

                                                         ORDER

1. Serious citation 1, item 1, alleging violation of §5(a)(1) of the Act is VACATED.

                                                                  /s/
                                                                 James H. Barkley
                                                                 Judge, OSHRC
   

Dated: August 2, 2006

          1
             Va ughn te stified that he had n ever w orke d on anoth er CT B p roject wher e the ha rdwa re was stored on his
 crane (Tr. 94). On other jobs where V aughn had hoisted CTB s, piles of hardware were laid out on the ground every
 30 feet or so (Tr. 48-49). Both Lop ez and Delgado testified that they had worked on other CTB projects where the
 hard ware was stored o n a sep arate tru ck or back hoe, none where it was kep t on the c rane itse lf (Tr. 1 16, 1 29) .

                                                              8