Agriculture production or harvesting crews · California

James Marshall Farm Service LLC

Sanger, CA · ~41 workers · 7 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
7.8
Avg TCR
4.5
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

James Marshall Farm Service LLC runs at 173% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Agriculture production or harvesting crews workplace, earning a grade D.

James Marshall Farm Service LLC: 7.8 TCR = 173% of Agriculture production or harvesting crews BLS 4.5 · 7y Form 300A (see methodology below)

James Marshall Farm Service LLC safety composite

James Marshall Farm Service LLC scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 86% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 21%), blended into one 0-100 breakdown against same-industry peers. A missing measure drops out and redistributes its weight rather than deflating the score. This is a per-dimension breakdown, distinct from the single letter grade above it (which weights TCR alone against the BLS industry benchmark).

D

52/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 7.78 per 100 workers

Safer than 21% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 86% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 53% of industry peers

Benchmarked live against every credibly-rated employer in the same NAICS industry code in the current OSHA extract (a segment must have at least 8 rated peers to benchmark). Not a legal or compliance determination; PlainSafetyScore's own weighting (TCR 40%, DART 35%, fatalities 25%).

TCR Δ

−1.2

2017→2024

James Marshall Farm Service LLC injury rate improved

James Marshall Farm Service LLC's TCR fell 1.2 from 1.2 in 2017 to 0.0 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2023 at 17.9 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2017=1.2 · 2018=2.6 · 2019=0.0 · 2021=16.0 · 2022=16.6 · 2023=17.9 · 2024=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 115115 · Sanger, CA ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade D · TCR 7.8 · 173% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #490/620
  • PHOTO RCP-HURON
  • BOOK 7y book
  • INJ 17 inj
  • SIZE ~41 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: RCP-HURON (0.0 TCR gap)

Read with this employer → · Industry book → · California employers → · Look up another →

James Marshall Farm Service LLC in the TCR neighbourhood

Average Total Case Rate among this establishment and nearest same-industry peers

TCR

What this shows James Marshall Farm Service LLC averages 7.8 TCR (173% of the Agriculture production or harvesting crews BLS benchmark).

Source U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Injury Tracking Application (Form 300A) As of 2026-08-25

James Marshall Farm Service LLC TCR series: 2017=1.2 · 2018=2.6 · 2019=0 · 2021=16 · 2022=16.6 · 2023=17.9 · 2024=0 · BLS 4.5

Where James Marshall Farm Service LLC falls in its industry

836 Agriculture production or harv establishments

Safer than 21% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.4.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to California alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #490 safest of 620 Agriculture production or harv employers in California.

James Marshall Farm Service LLC (41 employees, TCR 7.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 107 employees and a TCR of 4.4 2×2 strategic matrix plotting 30 entities by Average employees (X) and Total Case Rate (Y), with a crosshair dividing the plot into four quadrants. Larger & higher-riskSmaller & higher-riskLarger & saferSmaller & safer than peers 05001,0001,5002,0002,500 0510152025 Average employees Total Case Rate James Marshall Farm Service LLC
James Marshall Farm Service LLC (41 employees, TCR 7.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 107 employees and a TCR of 4.4

James Marshall Farm Service LLC has fewer employees than the Agriculture production or harvesting cre median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.4. Workforce size and injury rate do not always move together within the same industry -- some of its smaller peers run higher rates than its larger ones, and vice versa.

Year-by-Year Safety Data

Year TCR DART Injuries Illnesses Fatalities
2024 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2023 17.9 3.6 5 0 0
2022 16.6 6.7 5 0 0
2021 16.0 9.6 5 0 0
2019 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2018 2.6 2.6 1 0 0
2017 1.2 1.2 1 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

115115 · CA · Sanger

836 Agriculture production or harvesting crews employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 51,834 rated employers in California with headcount on file · 46 employers in Sanger, CA · 4 cross-state NAT-TCR peers · 4 cross-state NAT-SIZE peers. Closest matches by relationship code are listed below.

Rel Establishment Metric
NAICS-TCR RCP-HURON 7.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR LINO FINATTI, JR. 7.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR F & F CONTRACTING INC 7.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR T and M Agricultural Services LLC 7.7 TCR
STATE-SIZE CAL-O ORGANIC FARMING ADMINISTRATION 41 FTE
STATE-SIZE Sun Pacific Farming | Citrus Farming | Lindsay 41 FTE
STATE-SIZE Sun Pacific Farming | Citrus Farming | IEW Enterprise 41 FTE
STATE-SIZE George Jackson Farms, Inc. 41 FTE
CITY-NEAR Fruit Harvest Family, Inc. 4,103 FTE
CITY-NEAR Fruit Harvest No 2 Inc 1,433 FTE
CITY-NEAR Sanger Plant 1,425 FTE
CITY-NEAR EVERARDO GONZALEZ 866 FTE
NAT-TCR Myrtle Beach Plasma Center 7.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Amazon.com Services LLC - SAZ2 7.8 TCR
NAT-TCR City of Bellevue 7.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Carson Concrete Corporation 7.8 TCR
NAT-SIZE Quality Companies Inc 41 FTE
NAT-SIZE Steiner Shipyard 41 FTE
NAT-SIZE Rose City Plant 41 FTE
NAT-SIZE Palmettos of Charleston Assisted Living and Memory Care 41 FTE

Rel codes: NAICS-TCR · STATE-SIZE · CITY-NEAR · NAT-TCR/NAT-SIZE cross-state. Read with this employer →

Data Source: OSHA Injury Tracking Application (ITA), mandatory establishment-level injury/illness reports. Grades compare employer Total Case Rate (TCR) to BLS IIF industry benchmarks. Data covers years reported by this establishment: 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, 2019, 2018, 2017. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.