## Facts

- Two employees of Sabine Consolidated, Inc. (Sabine), a construction company, were killed when an excavation trench on their job site caved in and buried them.
- Texas alleged Sabine and its president, Joseph Tantillo, failed to provide a safe working environment by not properly shoring or sloping the excavation wall, which led to the collapse.
- The State charged Sabine and Tantillo with criminally negligent homicide under Texas criminal law.
- Both defendants entered no contest pleas.
- Sabine was punished with a $10,000 fine.
- Tantillo was sentenced to six months in jail, one year of probation, and a $2,000 fine.
- A Texas intermediate appellate court overturned the convictions and ordered acquittals, concluding OSHA showed Congress’s implied intent to occupy the field of workplace safety and therefore preempted state law as applied.
- Texas sought discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which granted review to decide whether OSHA preempted the prosecution.

## Issues

1. Whether the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) preempts Texas from prosecuting an employer and its president for criminally negligent homicide based on a workplace trench-collapse death.
2. Whether applying a generally applicable Texas criminal statute to workplace fatalities constitutes a state “occupational safety and health standard” displaced by OSHA’s preemption provisions.
3. Whether OSHA impliedly preempts the prosecution through field preemption or conflict (obstacle or impossibility) preemption.

## Decision

- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held OSHA did not preempt Texas’s criminally negligent homicide prosecution in these circumstances.
- The court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment that had ordered acquittals.
- The court reinstated the trial court’s judgments of conviction and sentences.
- The court reasoned that Texas was enforcing a general criminal law aimed at punishing homicide, not issuing or enforcing a state occupational-safety “standard” within OSHA’s preemption target.
- The court relied on OSHA’s statutory text showing that, while OSHA addresses workplace safety standards and permits state plans, it does not displace other state laws affecting employer culpability for employee injuries and deaths.

## Legal Principles

- OSHA’s preemption scheme focuses on state occupational safety and health “standards” and related regulatory regimes, not on generally applicable state criminal laws.
- A state does not create a preempted OSHA “standard” merely by using workplace-safety concepts or proof about jobsite hazards in a criminal case.
- OSHA’s savings language signals that Congress did not intend OSHA to displace state rules governing employer liability and culpability for employee injuries or deaths, including liability arising under state statutes and common law.
- Absent a clear congressional command, federal workplace-safety regulation is not read to displace state criminal enforcement for deaths and injuries occurring at work.
- There is no conflict preemption where the state criminal prosecution neither makes compliance with OSHA impossible nor blocks OSHA’s federal enforcement program.

## Conclusion

In *Sabine Consolidated, Inc. v. Texas*, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that OSHA did not bar Texas from prosecuting Sabine and its president for criminally negligent homicide after two employees died in a trench collapse, because the case applied a generally applicable criminal statute rather than a state occupational-safety standard and did not present a federal-state conflict under OSHA’s text and purpose.


Sabine Consolidated, Inc. v. Texas, 806 S.W.2d 553 (1991)