High-Quality Training
High-quality training should be a priority for every company, but especially for those whose employees work at height. Proper training reduces the likelihood of accidents and their high costs. Well-designed, properly administered training also sets a solid foundation for a strong defense if litigation occurs.
Generally, the industry sees the value of safety, but too many companies that use aerial work platforms still view training as a government-mandated nuisance. These employers try to save time and costs by using programs that do the bare minimum. They focus on “checking the box” that training happened, not the effectiveness of the training.
This short-sighted approach will cost them more in the long run than investing in well-designed and administered training.
Accidents Bring Lawsuits
OSHA holds employers responsible for providing a safe workplace. If an employee has an accident, the employer must prove the company did everything possible to properly train that employee.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys want someone to blame. They start with the accident and work backward to develop theories of alleged negligence. Their goal is to assign blame and convince a jury to award damages in proportion to that responsibility.
Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Target Training
Training is often the first area plaintiffs’ attorneys attack. They will bring in “experts” willing to question the adequacy of a training program. They may ask:
- How long did the training take?
- What materials were used?
- Were there written and practical tests?
- What was the content of the practical exam?
- Could a participant fail?
- What equipment was used?
They’ll also examine the trainer’s qualifications, the consistency of the training program, and the completeness of training records.
Many employers mistakenly believe that learning to operate equipment is all the training a user needs. In reality, operating skill is only a small part of training. Many accidents happen because operators choose the wrong equipment for the job or fail to analyze jobsite hazards.
Employer Responsibility
Some clients try to excuse gaps in training or retraining, but excuses do not protect an employer from litigation. The better an employer trains workers to assess hazards, choose proper equipment, and operate safely, the better protected they are.
As an attorney defending aerial lift cases, I personally took the AWPT course and earned a PAL Card to better understand these cases. But does that mean an employer should let me run an aerial lift? Of course not.
Employers must verify that employees are trained and competent to operate the equipment they will be using. Employers must also retrain employees who were inadequately trained or are no longer competent. OSHA 1926.503(b)(1) further requires employers to keep training records.
Many employers are unaware of this responsibility. OSHA and plaintiffs’ attorneys will request training records, and if they don’t exist, their absence can be used in court to portray the employer as “valuing profits over safety.”
A Case Example
In one recent case, I received the following requests:
- Produce all documents used to train the trainer; materials used during the plaintiff’s training; all tests, quizzes, or other documents completed by the plaintiff; all videos, slides, or electronic media used; and all records maintained under OSHA 1926.503(b)(1).
- Identify all equipment the plaintiff was trained on by year, make, and model; identify any outside vendor used for training, along with steps taken to assess the vendor’s adequacy; state the length of the training; and list all attendees.
How well could your company respond to such requests?
In this case, aerial lift training took place under a tree in a parking lot, lasted two hours, and involved only raising and lowering the boom. A week later, one of the “trained” employees tipped a lift by driving onto plywood covering a hole—an obvious hazard never discussed in training.
The Bottom Line
If you are sued for improper training, a jury of people whose only qualification is a driver’s license will likely decide the case. That’s why the best defense is to prevent accidents. The second-best defense is to maintain safety and training programs that are clearly excellent—even to non-experts.
Conducting an internal assessment of your training program is the first step in preventing you from ever having to say: “I didn’t think it would happen to me.”