Skip to main content

Director, Department of Labor & Industrial Relations v. Kiewit Pacific Co.

HAWAPPJanuary 8, 2004No. 24226Cited 7 times
Mixed ResultKiewit Pacific Co.
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Burns, Watanabe, Lim
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The Hawaii Supreme Court vacated in part and affirmed in part the lower court's decision, holding that 29 C.F.R. § 1926.501(b)(4)(h) does apply to shallow ground-level holes, contrary to the circuit court and LIRAB's interpretation, and remanding for further proceedings.

What This Ruling Means

**Safety Regulation Dispute Goes to Hawaii Supreme Court** This case involved a disagreement over workplace safety rules for construction workers. The Hawaii Department of Labor challenged Kiewit Pacific Company's interpretation of federal safety regulations, specifically rules about protecting workers from falls into holes and excavations. The dispute centered on whether certain safety requirements applied to shallow, ground-level holes at construction sites. The Hawaii Supreme Court partially sided with the Department of Labor. The court ruled that federal safety regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1926.501(b)(4)(h) does apply to shallow ground-level holes, overturning lower court decisions that had agreed with the company's narrower interpretation. However, the court also partially affirmed some aspects of the lower court's ruling. The case was sent back to lower courts for additional proceedings. **What This Means for Workers:** This decision strengthens workplace safety protections for construction workers. It clarifies that employers must follow federal fall protection rules even for shallow holes at ground level, not just deeper excavations. This broader interpretation of safety regulations means better protection against workplace injuries and ensures employers cannot avoid safety requirements by claiming certain hazards don't qualify under the rules.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.