President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court recently
decided a case against Sea World. There, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
proposed a $70,000 fine after a Sea World trainer was dragged to the bottom of
the tank and drowned by Tilikum, a killer whale. ProfLERoy presents this
interesting contrast between two powerful federal appeals judges, Judge Garland
and Judge Brett Kavanaugh (who dissented)
JUDGE GARLAND: The record evidence showed that SeaWorld’s
training and protocols did not prevent continued incidents, including the
submerging and biting of one trainer in 2006, the killing of a trainer by a
SeaWorld-trained and—owned killer whale in 2009 at an amusement park in Spain,
and Ms. Brancheau’s death in 2010. SeaWorld employees repeatedly acknowledged
the unpredictability of its killer whales. This record evidence supports the
ALJ’s finding that existing protocols were inadequate to eliminate or
materially reduce the hazard to SeaWorld's trainer employees performing with
killer whales.
Abatement is “feasible” when it is “economically and
technologically capable of being done.” After Ms. Brancheau’s death, SeaWorld
required that all trainers work with Tilikum from a minimum distance or behind
a barrier, and “waterwork” ceased with all of its killer whales. SeaWorld’s use
of protective contact with Tilikum, the three-year moratorium on “waterwork”
after Ms. Brancheau’s death, and repeated temporary cessation of “waterwork”
with all killer whales or particular killer whales after other incidents
support the finding that these changes were feasible and would not
fundamentally alter the nature of the trainers' employment or SeaWorld’s
business.
Given evidence of continued incidents of aggressive behavior
by killer whales toward trainers notwithstanding SeaWorld’s training, operant
conditioning practices, and emergency measures, SeaWorld could have anticipated
that abatement measures it had applied after other incidents would be required.
[RULING FOR OSHA]
JUDGE KAVANAUGH, dissenting:
Many sports events and entertainment shows can be extremely
dangerous for the participants. Football. Ice hockey. Downhill skiing. Air
shows. The circus. Horse racing. Tiger taming. Standing in the batter's box
against a 95 mile per hour fastball. Bull riding at the rodeo. Skydiving into
the stadium before a football game. Daredevil motorcycle jumps. Stock car
racing. Cheerleading vaults. Boxing. The balance beam. The ironman triathlon.
Animal trainer shows. Movie stunts. The list goes on.
But the participants in those activities want to take part,
sometimes even to make a career of it, despite and occasionally because of the
known risk of serious injury. To be fearless, courageous, tough—to perform a
sport or activity at the highest levels of human capacity, even in the face of
known physical risk—is among the greatest forms of personal achievement for
many who take part in these activities. American spectators enjoy watching
these amazing feats of competition and daring, and they pay a lot to do so.
Americans like to witness the thrill of victory, to cheer the linebacker who
hammers the running back at the goal line, to yell with admiration as Derek
Jeter flies into the stands down the left-field line to make a catch, to
applaud the gymnast who nails the back flip off the balance beam, to hold their
collective breath as Jack Hanna plays with pythons, to root on the marathoner
who is near collapse at the finish line, to scream “Foreman” when the announcer
says “Down goes Frazier.” And American spectators also commiserate during the
“agony of defeat,” as immortalized in the Wide World of Sports video of a ski
jumper flying horribly off course.
The broad question implicated by this case is this: When
should we as a society paternalistically decide that the participants in these
sports and entertainment activities must be protected from themselves—that the
risk of significant physical injury is simply too great even for eager and
willing participants? And most importantly for this case, who decides that the
risk to participants is too high?
[T]he bureaucracy at the U.S. Department of Labor has not
traditionally been thought of as the proper body to decide whether to ban
fighting in hockey, to prohibit the punt return in football, to regulate the
distance between the mound and home plate in baseball, to separate the lions
from the tamers at the circus, or the like.
In this case, however, the Department departed from
tradition and stormed headlong into a new regulatory arena. The Department
issued a citation to SeaWorld that effectively bans SeaWorld from continuing a
longstanding and popular (albeit by definition somewhat dangerous) show in
which SeaWorld trainers play with and interact with whales. The Department’s
SeaWorld decision was upheld administratively by the independent Occupational
Safety and Health Review Commission,1 and the majority opinion today affirms.
Whether SeaWorld’s show is unreasonably dangerous to
participants and should be banned or changed is not the question before us. The
question before us is whether the Department of Labor has authority under
current law to make that decision—in addition to the authority already
possessed by Congress, state legislatures, state regulators, and courts
applying state tort law.
No comments:
Post a Comment