Mark Lies Featured in TMCnet.com - “Lack of E911 Raises Corporate Liability: Expert”

Mark Lies was featured in the September 29, 2009 TMCnet.com article, “Lack of E911 Raises Corporate Liability: Expert.” The article discussed a recent webinar where Mark discussed how organizations that lack enhanced E911 systems for emergency communications run the risk of exposing themselves to serious fines and lawsuits. E911 uses location-based technology to determine the whereabouts of distressed callers, helping emergency responders locate them and potentially saving lives and property.

According to Mark, OSHA could leverage a general regulation to cite employers and issue penalties that range from $7,000 to $70,000 per day for organizations that fail to have employee protections such as those provided by E911. Mark noted, “There have not been specific citations yet under the General Duty Clause, but this is a very dynamic area…. The Democratic administration does not believe that under the last eight years of the Bush administration, that there has been aggressive enforcement of the OSHA laws, and in fact there are proposals under OSHA law to include criminal liability as well as civil.”

According to the article, fifteen U.S. states already have E911 laws on their books. Mark recommended that employers look at the statutes that apply to their state and determine what kinds of fines or penalties may be assessed against organizations that are out of compliance. The article noted that even in the other 35 states that have no E911 law, OSHA requires a written Emergency Action Plan that includes a plan for evacuation in case of emergency. Mark commented, “It is entirely conceivable that using existing regulations, OSHA could issue citations. The General Duty Clause is a much more real potential liability area. If OSHA does not have a specific regulation that’s been promulgated and issued, but there is a recognized hazard to safety or health that’s likely to cause serious injury or death to an employee, they can issue citations to employers for failure to have a protective device or procedure in effect.”

Mark concluded, “There is going to be more legislation coming. More states will come on board with this. It’s just a matter of time. The technology is clearly available, and there is no doubt that non-compliance with statutory requirements or ignoring a known hazard could lead to common-law liability.”