Portland Personal Injury Law Blog

Whether you work in an office or on a construction site, your employer must provide a safe environment. Obviously working on a construction site brings with it a higher risk for physical harm.

Lucky for you, federal law has your back. Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), your company must provide a safe workplace for its employees. You don’t have to wait for something bad to happen, though. If you see conditions that warrant reasonable concern for you and your fellow workers’ safety, you can file a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The agency will then conduct an investigation and fine the company if there are any legitimate safety violations.

Most people think about these situations in terms of workers’ compensation cases that involve their direct employer. But if you work on a construction site where some work is subcontracted out, that subcontractor must also obey the laws associated with workplace safety.

What is “Protected Concerted Activity”?

Whether you are union or a nonunion worker, you can refuse to take part in work if you fear it is unsafe. When two or more employees do this it is referred to in legal terms as protect concerted activity. A single employee can take action as well if they are acting on authority of other employees.

Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), you are given the right to join with other employees (even if it’s not in a formal union setting) to ensure safe working conditions.

Most employees are protect under the NLRA, but there are some exceptions:

- If you are employed by federal, state, or local government
- If you work as an agricultural laborer
- If you work in the domestic service of any person or family in a home
- If you are employed by a parent or spouse
- If you are employed as an independent contractor
- If you work for a company subject to the Railway Labor Act (railroads, airlines)
- If you work for a person who is not an employer as defined in the NLRA

While the NLRA sets out to protect workers’ safety, in reality it also acts as a bit of protection for employers from potential lawsuits. If dangers are addressed beforehand and accidents are prevented in the first place, it’s a positive for all involved.

Toyota hasn’t had a good couple of years. While the company’s woes are most associated with manufacturing defects in their popular hybrid car, the Prius, its luxury division Lexus has had its share of problems as well.

A lawsuit by a California family that helped usher in a safety recall on Toyota vehicles was finally settled for $10 million. The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in San Diego Superior Court in March 2010 after an off-duty state trooper and three other family members were involved in a fatal car wreck.

Toyota ordered recalls in 2009 and 2010 to repair badly fitted floor mats that could jam the accelerator. The recall also involved gas pedals that did not spring back properly.

While the judgment for the California family was kept private since the ruling in September 2010, a judge ruled that it should be made public. Two attorneys associated with the case went public before the settlement documents were to be filed in court.

This settlement only involved the Toyota Corporation, but now a new claim may be filed by attorneys against the dealership who was warned by a previous driver of the vehicle about its acceleration issues. While the dealership’s receptionist claims to have told an on-duty detail specialist about the problem, apparently the issue was never looked into.

Portland is known for its environmentally conscious citizenry, which makes it no surprise that Toyota Prius’s are a popular vehicle in the area. According to research done by R.L. Polk & Co. and Hybridcars.com, Portland ranked No. 1. for new hybrid sales per-1,000 households in 2009.

Oregonian reporter Helen Jung recently blogged about an interesting topic: Do Oregon helmet laws also cover kids who ride tricycles? The question arose as a debate she was having with her husband. Here is what the law states:

ORS 814.485: “A person commits the offense of failure of a bicycle operator or rider to wear protective headgear if the person is under 16 years of age, operates or rides on a bicycle on a highway or on premises open to the public and is not wearing protective headgear of a type approved under ORS 815.052.”

If a youth violates this traffic law, the maximum fine is $25, which is issued to their parents, that is unless the child is 12 or older, where the fine can be issued to either the child or the parent.

Note that the law says “bicycle,” with no mention of the word “tricycle” anywhere to be found. In fact, as Ms. Jung found out, the section just before the one quoted above clarifies that the law does not cover tricycles “designed to be ridden by children.”

But don’t take the legality of the act to imply that it is okay to allow your children to ride their tricycles without a helmet. As any parent can tell you, kids can be a walking time bomb, as they have very little regard for their own safety. It’s a part of growing up, which means that responsible parents should still err on the side of caution and always have their little one wear a helmet when they are riding a tricycle or any of the Big Wheel-style three-wheel vehicles.

Also, while the law only requires children to wear helmets in public places, common sense tells us that we should go above and beyond what is required.

“They can crack their head open the same way,” says Adrienne Greene, director of Safe Kids Oregon. “You put a helmet on a kid any time they’re starting to ride anything with wheels.”

You’re sending a positive message to your child which will make it a habit, which will hopefully make your life easier not having to fight to get them to wear a helmet in the first place.

You can learn more about the importance of helmets and some tips on what to look for in one when you go to buy them.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/themombeat/2010/11/does_oregons_bicycle_helmet_la.html

Having someone sign a waiver doesn’t always make one immune from a personal injury lawsuit. A teen in Waterloo, Iowa was injured on a field trip and even though his mother signed a personal injury waiver, the Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that he can pursue a negligence claim.

The court says that the waiver violates public policy and is unenforceable. With its decision, the court has stated that “We believe a strong policy in favor of protecting children must trump any competing interest.”

Taneia Galloway, who was 14 at the time of the incident, went on a field trip to Milwaukee with a youth program, Upward Bound in 2005. The University of Northern Iowa and the state of Iowa organized the bus trip.

According to Ryan Beattie, Galloway’s attorney, she was struck by a car when she was getting off the bus, which caused knee and other injuries.

“They had to cross this busy street in the middle of a rainstorm without any kind of order or supervision,” said Beattie.

Galloway’s mother signed both a permission form and a medical authorization form. And when the mother initially sued, an Iowa court found that the releases waived her claims and dismissed her case.

In her successful appeal, Taneia Galloway, who is now 19 years old, said parents “are ill-equipped” to know the injury risks their children may face in advance when the releases are signed.

While the Iowa Supreme Court stated that the waiver policy is valid for adults, “we believe that strong public policy favoring the protection of vulnerable minor children demands a different rule here.”

In 2008, there were 19 fatalities in Portland, Oregon. Of those, five were innocent pedestrians. Sadly, we just had a pedestrian fatality here in Portland on November 9, when a 23-month-old child was struck by a car while riding in a stroller.