SeaWorld killer whale trainer dies: Is SeaWorld to blame?

SeaWorld killer whale trainer Dawn Brancheau died in 2010 when killer whale Tilikum pulled her underwater. An appeals court must decide whether SeaWorld is guilty of an OSHA violation. 

Mathieu Belanger/Reuters/File
Tilikum, a 12,000-pound killer whale, performs at SeaWorld amusement park in September 2009. After the 2010 death of Dawn Brancheau, a 40-year-old trainer, OSHA has demanded SeaWorld physically separate trainers from orcas during performances. SeaWorld is appealing the broad application of a federal safety law meant to protect workers in unusual circumstances.

A federal appellate court in Washington is hearing arguments on whether a citation issued to SeaWorld should be upheld following the death of a trainer.

Three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia listened to arguments Tuesday.

SeaWorld is contesting two violations issued by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration following the death of Orlando trainer Dawn Brancheau.

She was killed in February 2010 when a six-ton killer whale pulled her into a pool.

An administrative judge last year upheld the citation but downgraded the violations from willful to serious.

SeaWorld is arguing that the job safety agency overreached with its citation.

The Sun Sentinel reported:

Efforts by the government to restrict "close contact" between the trainers and killer whales is akin to forcing the NFL to forbid tackling, he said — a move that undercuts the underlying premise of the business and ignores training done to prevent injury.

"It's as if the federal government came in and told the NFL that 'close contact' on the football field would have to end" because more people are injured in football games than in training killer whales, said Scalia, son of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

But the Sentinel reported that Chief Judge Merrick Garland challenged the argument, using the same analogy.  Did the helmet rule "totally change the nature of the presentation of the NFL?" asked Garland, or just make it safer?

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.