legal developments Safety insight: Now might be a good time to remind your crew members that it’s rarely a good idea to modify hazardous equipment in order to increase efficiency. What happened: A staff member was told by his supervisor to clean a floor using a device that sprayed highly pressurized water through a hose fitted with a nozzle. The staffer didn’t know that someone had modified the nozzle to increase the volume of pressurized water coming out of the hose to improve the device’s efficiency. The man’s boss was aware of the modification. What people did: As soon as the worker turned on the equipment, a blast of highly pressurized water sprayed out of the hose, which caused the hose and the nozzle to kick back forcefully and strike the staffer in the head. He suffered head trauma, a broken clavicle and a severed ear. Legal challenge: The injured man sued his employer, arguing that he was entitled to damages beyond workers’ comp because the manufacturer of the device had warned the company not to modify the nozzle. He also noted that the organization was cited for a safety violation after the incident. Result: The company won. The court said the staffer failed to prove he was eligible for benefits beyond workers’ comp. Yes, the employer negligently modified the equipment, but the company didn’t know for sure that the modification would cause the man’s injury, which was the legal bar he needed to surpass in order to get damages beyond comp. The skinny: Injured staff members usually have a hard time convincing a judge that their employer knew they’d get hurt. Cite: Razo v. County of Orange, Court of Appeal of California, No. G064631, 2/3/26. horror stories Summary A man who followed in his father’s footsteps to spend his life working as a professional pile driver was fatally crushed underneath a collapsed 250- ton-capacity crane. The incident After Paul Ledwell graduated from Silver Lake Regional High School in Kingston, MA, there wasn’t much question about what he’d do for a living. He’d grown up watching his dad labor as a pile driver, and he wanted to pursue the same career. Ledwell's job as a pile driver took him to many places, including New York and Florida, but he eventually returned to Massachusetts and took a position as a pile driver with ACK Marine. When ACK Marine became a subcontractor on a project to demolish the former ExxonMobil oil terminal on the Mystic River in Everett, MA, Ledwell was able to work closer to his home in Middleborough, MA. The job required Ledwell to take apart piping systems located on a barge in the river. He was laboring beneath a 250-ton-capacity crane that was being used for the demolition project. One day while Ledwell was on the barge with the rest of his crew, a cable on the gigantic crane snapped and the boom collapsed onto the barge. Ledwell became trapped under the wreckage. The response Responders were able to pull Ledwell, 37, from the rubble, but his injuries were too severe and he was soon declared dead. The aftermath “Paul was a man who embodied the values of hard work and family,” wrote his sister, Darcy Kennedy. “He was a shining example of what it means to dedicate your life to your work and the people you love. As we grieve his loss, we also celebrate the incredible person he was and the legacy he leaves behind.” March 9, 2026 Safety Alert for Supervisors 3 You make the call: The decision (See case on page 1) Yes. The company won. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Review Commission overturned the citation. The commission said the employer didn’t violate the fall protection rule because there was no feasible way for the staff member to have installed anchor points to which he could’ve attached his safety equipment. And the commission said the company wasn’t required to change its procedures so that railcars were moved into the loading facility before crew members could climb atop them. OSHA had to prove that the change to the organization’s procedures would’ve actually kept people safer, but the agency was unable to do that. What it means: Never take chances with safety While the employer in this case beat back the OSHA citation, it still wound up with an injured worker and significant legal expenses because it failed to make sure the man standing atop the railcar wore his safety gear. That’s why you shouldn’t take chances with staffer safety. If there’s a safer way to handle a task – such as by moving railcars into stationary structures – it’s better to do things that way, even if it means a job might take a little longer. Keep in mind that any potential time savings from shortcuts pale in comparison with the significant cost of a worker injury. Based on Secretary of Labor v. Finley Farmers. Worker suffers severed ear while using modified device Employee buried under rubble after gigantic crane collapses