The spotter had his back turned, the camera had glare, and nobody wore high-vis
A trucking company had back-up cameras, alarms, high-vis rules, and a firing policy - but a federal court found none of it counted.
On October 28, 2026, the Eighth Circuit upheld an OSHA citation against Hall Trucking, Inc. after one of its trucks fatally struck an employee during an oil rig move.
The company challenged the citation all the way to federal appeals court. It lost at every level.
OSHA cited Hall Trucking under the general duty clause - the federal safety law requiring employers to keep workplaces free from known hazards likely to cause death or serious harm. The proposed fix: an internal traffic control plan, or ITCP, which can include steps to keep workers and trucks apart, high-visibility gear requirements, and targeted training.
Hall Trucking argued its existing safety procedures were adequate. On paper, they looked solid - back-up alarms, cameras, training, high-vis gear, and a policy of firing anyone who broke the rules.
The reality looked nothing like the manual.
During the fatal incident, the back-up camera had glare. The spotter had his back turned. Employees were not wearing high-visibility gear. Workers routinely ignored back-up alarms. The company had never given employees written policies for struck-by hazards - the exact danger that killed their colleague.
The court noted that putting safety measures in a manual is not enough “unless those measures are actually followed and enforced.”
The company also argued ITCPs were too vague and too rigid for field conditions that could change 50 to 100 times a day. The court disagreed. The record showed ITCPs are flexible, account for site-specific conditions, and do not need continuous revision. The government’s expert - with hands-on traffic control experience - testified that moving an oil rig is comparable to highway work, where ITCPs are already used.
Hall Trucking argued a specific federal regulation should have applied instead of the general duty clause, but the court found it had never raised that point before the review commission. Too late. Waived.
The company also challenged the exclusion of its own expert witness. The court upheld the call: Hall Trucking’s expert lacked specialized traffic control knowledge, while the government’s had direct ITCP experience.
The Eighth Circuit denied the petition for review.
For HR and safety teams, the lesson is blunt: a safety policy nobody follows is not a safety policy. OSHA and the courts will look at what happened on the work site, not what sat in a binder.
The decision is final.
