Test Your OHS IQ
Who’s Liable for Safety
Defects in Leased
Equipment—the Company
that Supplied It or the One
that Used It?
A construction company arranges to rent a dozer from an equipment supplier. The supplier inspects the
dozer before delivery and verifies that it’s “job ready”—that is, safe, in good condition and compliant with
the OHS regulations, including the requirement that dozers have seatbelts and pull stop knobs. The
company accepts delivery of the dozer and a worker operates it without incident for two weeks. The
worker then attempts to load the dozer onto a trailer when it tips over, crushing him to death. A
government inspector finds that the dozer’s seatbelt and pull stop knob that were in place when the dozer
was delivered are now missing, in violation of the OHS regulations. The rental agreement requires the
company to maintain the dozer in good condition while using it. The OHS law requires an equipment
supplier to ensure that equipment is in good condition and complies with the regulations when it’s leased
and requires employers to maintain equipment at their site in safe condition.
QUESTION
Who’s liable for the safety violations related to the dozer?
OHS Insider | Bongarde Media Co | 102-501 Main Street, Penticton, BC | V2A 9A6 | Canada | 800.667.9300
Test Your OHS IQ
A.
The supplier, because it can’t delegate its duty to ensure the safe condition of the dozer to the
company through the rental agreement.
B.
The company, if the violations were caused by its failure to properly maintain the dozer as required
by the OHS regulations.
C.
The supplier, because the seatbelt and pull stop knobs were missing at the time of the incident.
D.
Both the supplier and the company.
The Correct Answer Is:
B. If the company failed to properly maintain the dozer, then it’s liable for the safety violations.
OHS Insider | Bongarde Media Co | 102-501 Main Street, Penticton, BC | V2A 9A6 | Canada | 800.667.9300
Test Your OHS IQ
EXPLANATION
This situation, which is based on an Ontario case in which the operator of a rented dozer was killed while
trying to load the dozer onto a trailer, shows how OHS laws assign liability for safety defects in leased
equipment. The dozer’s seatbelt and pull stop knob were missing. The supplier of the dozer was charged
with two safety violations for failing to ensure that the dozer was in good condition and that it complied
with the OHS regulations. The court acquitted the supplier of both charges, ruling that the prosecution
failed to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court explained that the OHS law requires a supplier to ensure that rented equipment is in good
condition and compliant with all safety requirements when the equipment is rented. The law permits the
supplier, in its rental agreement, to require the company renting the equipment to maintain it in good
condition once the company receives it. In this case, there was evidence that the dozer was in good
condition and compliant with the OHS regulations when the supplier delivered it. Exactly how the dozer’s
seatbelt and pull stop knob came to be missing was unclear. But the evidence clearly suggested that the
problem happened on the company’s watch. Thus, the court concluded that the supplier wasn’t liable for
an OHS violation.
WHY WRONG ANSWERS ARE WRONG
A is wrong, even though it’s a correct statement. Under the OHS law, a supplier is responsible for delivering
leased equipment in good condition and in compliance with the OHS laws. And the supplier can’t delegate
these duties to a company through a rental contract. But it can require that company to take over
responsibility for maintaining the equipment’s condition once the company takes delivery of that
equipment. Here, the supplier fulfilled its safety duties by delivering the dozer in “job ready” condition.
Once the company accepted the dozer, it became responsible for the dozer’s maintenance.
C is wrong because whether the supplier’s liable for the safety violations is based on the dozer’s condition
at the time it was delivered—not at the time of the incident. The OHS law only requires suppliers to check
OHS Insider | Bongarde Media Co | 102-501 Main Street, Penticton, BC | V2A 9A6 | Canada | 800.667.9300
Test Your OHS IQ
the equipment and verify that it’s safe and compliant before delivery. And this supplier did so. Thereafter,
the company became responsible for maintaining the equipment in safe condition. So the condition of the
dozer at the time of the incident was the company’s responsibility, not the supplier’s. This arrangement
makes sense because the company has possession of the equipment and is in the best position to repair
and maintain it.
D is wrong because although the company is liable, the supplier isn’t. The supplier fulfilled its duty under
the OHS law: It delivered the leased dozer to the company in “job ready” condition. At that point, it became
the company’s responsibility to maintain the dozer. And it doesn’t appear that the company did so because
the dozer was missing its seatbelt and pull stop knob.
SHOW YOUR LAWYER
R. v. Komatsu Canada Ltd., [2008] O.J. No. 4390, Sept. 15, 2008
OHS Insider | Bongarde Media Co | 102-501 Main Street, Penticton, BC | V2A 9A6 | Canada | 800.667.9300