## Facts

- Caterpillar performed maintenance on a 6,000-ton forging press (“Erie 6000”) at its East Peoria, Illinois plant on July 15–16, 1992, to remove a clutch hub and replace bearings.
- The maintenance used a gear-pulling device with four steel studs (about 35–40 pounds each, 42 inches long) under high stress.
- During the operation, a stud fractured and was propelled about 121 feet, striking an employee in the head and causing serious injury.
- OSHA cited Caterpillar for a willful violation of the general duty clause, alleging employees were exposed to being struck by flying parts because the equipment lacked an adequate safety factor and the operation was neither guarded nor retained.
- Evidence showed prior similar maintenance on the same press involved broken studs, and Caterpillar had notice of the hazard.
- A lead repairman repeatedly raised safety concerns and proposed precautions (e.g., barriers/shields or relocating the work), but management did not implement them and relied mainly on warning tape and signs to limit access.
- An ALJ affirmed the citation, found a willful violation, and assessed a $30,000 penalty; the Commission affirmed willfulness and increased the penalty to $49,000.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported a finding that Caterpillar violated the OSHA general duty clause by exposing employees to a recognized hazard without feasible and effective abatement.
2. Whether the violation was properly classified as willful based on Caterpillar’s knowledge of the hazard and its response to available precautions.
3. Whether the Commission acted within its authority and supported the record in increasing the penalty from $30,000 to $49,000.

## Decision

- The court denied Caterpillar’s petition for review and affirmed the Commission’s order.
- Substantial evidence supported that the maintenance method created a recognized projectile hazard likely to cause serious harm.
- Feasible measures existed to materially reduce exposure (e.g., physical shielding/containment, relocation of the operation, and equipment/retention practices to contain failures), and Caterpillar did not show infeasibility.
- The willful classification was upheld because Caterpillar knew of prior stud failures and rejected concrete internal safety proposals, relying instead on inadequate administrative measures.
- The $49,000 penalty was upheld as supported by the statutory penalty factors and the record.

## Legal Principles

- A general duty clause violation is established by showing: (1) a hazardous condition or activity; (2) employer or industry recognition of the hazard; (3) a likelihood of death or serious physical harm; and (4) feasible, effective means of abatement.
- A willful OSHA violation may be found where the employer intentionally disregards the Act’s requirements or shows plain indifference to employee safety, including when it persists in a hazardous method despite notice of the risk and available precautions.
- Reliance on worker experience or administrative warnings alone does not defeat a willful finding when feasible engineering or work-practice controls could materially reduce the hazard.
- Appellate review of Commission findings is limited to whether they are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, with deference to credibility and fact determinations.
- Penalties may be sustained where the Commission reasonably applies statutory factors such as employer size, gravity of the violation, good faith, and violation history.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld a willful general duty clause citation and a $49,000 penalty where Caterpillar, despite notice of prior stud failures and internal safety warnings, failed to implement feasible protective measures against projectile hazards during high-stress press maintenance.


Caterpillar Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 122 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 1997)