In December 2017, Casey Althoff was working for Pro-Tec Roofing, Inc. when he was severely injured after falling through a skylight on the roof of the Hartford Farmers Elevator. Pro-Tec had been hired to remove snow and ice from the roof, which included multiple translucent fiberglass panels intended for lighting. While Althoff and a coworker were shoveling snow, he stepped onto a skylight panel and fell approximately 18 feet onto the concrete floor below.
At the time of the incident, Althoff was not wearing fall protection equipment, nor had any fall prevention measures been implemented around the skylights. The site had been inspected by a Pro-Tec supervisor before snow removal began, but no warnings or barriers were put in place. Althoff suffered serious injuries, and in 2020, he filed a lawsuit against Pro-Tec Roofing, Inc. alleging negligence and violations of workplace safety standards.
In his complaint, Althoff alleged that Pro-Tec failed to comply with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations requiring fall protection systems for employees exposed to fall hazards. Specifically, he argued that the translucent skylights constituted unprotected holes in the roof and required guardrails, covers, or a personal fall arrest system as mandated under OSHA regulations.
Pro-Tec acknowledged that fall protection measures had not been used, but argued that the snow-covered condition of the skylight made it indistinguishable from the surrounding roof surface. They contended that they were unaware of the hazard and had not intentionally disregarded safety obligations.
Althoff sought to introduce evidence of Pro-Tec’s OSHA violations to support a claim for punitive damages. Pro-Tec filed a motion to exclude this evidence and argued that any OSHA violations did not rise to the level of willful or wanton misconduct.
The trial court ruled in favor of Pro-Tec on the motion to exclude punitive damages from jury consideration. The court held that there was insufficient evidence to suggest Pro-Tec acted with a willful and wanton disregard for worker safety. As a result, Althoff’s request to pursue punitive damages was denied, and the case proceeded without that claim.
Althoff appealed the decision, arguing that Pro-Tec’s disregard for OSHA standards and failure to provide fall protection created a jury question on punitive damages. The South Dakota Supreme Court reviewed whether the trial court erred in removing the punitive damages issue from the jury’s consideration.
The South Dakota Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s ruling, agreeing that the facts presented did not support a finding of willful or wanton misconduct by Pro-Tec. The Court noted that while OSHA regulations had likely been violated, the record did not indicate that Pro-Tec had knowledge of the specific skylight hazard or consciously ignored a known danger. The Court concluded that this amounted to negligence, but not the elevated standard required for punitive damages.
The Court emphasized that punitive damages require proof of more than carelessness or even gross negligence—they must be supported by evidence that the defendant acted with deliberate disregard for the safety of others. In this case, the evidence was insufficient to meet that threshold.
Our attorneys at Whitcomb, Selinsky, PC help workers and businesses understand their rights and obligations under OSHA regulations and pursue appropriate legal remedies when safety failures occur.