United States v. DNRB, Inc., No. 17-3148 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed DNRB's conviction of a Class B misdemeanor for willfully violating two safety regulations and causing an employee's death. The court held that, because the employee was not connected to an anchorage point before he fell, there was sufficient evidence that DNRB violated 29 C.F.R. 1926.760(a)(l) and (b)(1); sufficient evidence supported the district court's finding of willful violation by the company; and the factual findings were sufficient to support a conclusion that DNRB's failure to comply with the safety standards caused the employee's death. The court rejected DNRB's challenges to other-acts evidence and FRE 404(b) evidence; the district court considered and applied the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors before imposing a $500,000 fine; and the district court could impose the maximum fine allowed by law even though it recognized the likelihood DNRB, which had ceased operations, might not be able to pay.
Court Description: Gruender, Author, with Melloy and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. In an action against the employer of a worker who fell to his death while not wearing safety equipment, the evidence was sufficient to support the company's conviction of a Class B misdemeanor for willfully violating two safety regulations and causing the worker's death; other-acts evidence introduced by the government was relevant to the material issue of defendant's knowledge and intent - that is, that they were aware of the applicable standards,knew the worker was not using his safety equipment and that their failure to ensure he used it was knowing rather than accidental; further, the evidence was similar in nature to the conduct charged here, was supported by evidence showing defendant was responsible for the violation and was not unduly prejudicial; defendant had reasonable notice of the 404(b) evidence; before imposing a $500,000 fine, the court considered and applied the 3553(a) factors; the district court could impose the maximum fine allowed by law even though it recognized the likelihood defendant, which had ceased operations, might not be able to pay. [ July 16, 2018
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.