What are Cal/OSHA health and safety regulations?

Useful Resources for Health and Safety Regulations – Cal/OSHA

Recent Rulings on Health and Safety Regulations – Cal/OSHA

126-150 of 227 results

HOLE V. HU

In the first cause of action, Plaintiff alleges Defendants negligently caused his injuries, because of negligent provision and placement of the ladder and failure to comply with safety rules and ordinances, including Cal OSHA safety rules. In the second cause of action, Plaintiff alleges a claim under Labor Code section 3706.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2018

MIGUEL ANGEL CUEVA VS. PACIFIC AMERICAN FISH CO.

This section applies to “any oral or written complaint…with reference to employee safety or health” and has been interpreted to protect an employee “against discharge or discrimination for complaining in good faith about working conditions or practices which he reasonably believes to be unsafe, whether or not there exists at the time of the complaint an OSHA standard or order which is being violated.” (Hentzel v. Singer Co. (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 290, 299-300.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DR PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

(Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 130. It should generally include “a brief description 8 Dr Pepper complains attorneys are not always expressly identified as such on the privilege log (i.e., as “Attorney John Smith”). 9 The City also notes Robinson is identified elsewhere on the log as an attorney. (See Privilege Log, p. 8.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2018

MHS CUSTOMER SERVICES INC VS. DARRELL MARTIN

Such conduct, if true, could amount to an intentional disregard of the health and safety of the Martin family, and could exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community. The Potter v. Firestone case (cited above) demonstrates that the mishandling of toxic substances can suffice as "outrageous" conduct giving rise to an IIED cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MHS CUSTOMER SERVICES INC VS. DARRELL MARTIN

Such conduct, if true, could amount to an intentional disregard of the health and safety of the Martin family, and could exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community. The Potter v. Firestone case (cited above) demonstrates that the mishandling of toxic substances can suffice as "outrageous" conduct giving rise to an IIED cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MHS CUSTOMER SERVICES INC VS. DARRELL MARTIN

Such conduct, if true, could amount to an intentional disregard of the health and safety of the Martin family, and could exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community. The Potter v. Firestone case (cited above) demonstrates that the mishandling of toxic substances can suffice as "outrageous" conduct giving rise to an IIED cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ARCELIA GARIBAY VS FRIEND FAMILY TRUST ET AL

Tyson declares that he has analyzed the subject platform and finds it to be safe as it is in compliance with Cal-OSHA requirements, specifically Cal-OSHA Regulations Title 8, § 3276(c)(5). (Tyson Decl., at ¶¶ 10-11, 16.) The Court finds that Defendant once again has failed to meet its burden on the issue of existence of a dangerous condition. Defendant’s argument is essentially that the platform is in compliance with a Cal-OSHA regulation and therefore is not dangerous. This argument is improper.

  • Hearing

    Oct 12, 2018

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HHS CONSTRUCTION VS. CALIFORNIA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH APPEALS BOARD

CALIFORNIA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH APPEALS BOARD, Respondent, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH, Real Party in Interest. Nature of Proceedings: Petition for Writ of Mandate – Tentative Ruling In this writ proceeding, Petitioner HHS Construction challenges the decision of the California Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (the “Board") sustaining multiple citations for violations of workplace safety laws.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2018

JOSE BEJAR VS. GEA WESTFALIA SEPARATOR INC

"[T]he provisions of this division, and the occupational safety and health standards and orders promulgated under this code, are applicable to proceedings against employers for the exclusive purpose of maintaining and enforcing employee safety." Lab. Code, § 6304.5. GEA argues that the legislative intent of Cal OSHA regulations are not applicable in an employee's action against a third person not his employer. That is not the current state of the law.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

JOSE BEJAR VS. GEA WESTFALIA SEPARATOR INC

"[T]he provisions of this division, and the occupational safety and health standards and orders promulgated under this code, are applicable to proceedings against employers for the exclusive purpose of maintaining and enforcing employee safety." Lab. Code, § 6304.5. GEA argues that the legislative intent of Cal OSHA regulations are not applicable in an employee's action against a third person not his employer. That is not the current state of the law.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

JOSE BEJAR VS. GEA WESTFALIA SEPARATOR INC

"[T]he provisions of this division, and the occupational safety and health standards and orders promulgated under this code, are applicable to proceedings against employers for the exclusive purpose of maintaining and enforcing employee safety." Lab. Code, § 6304.5. GEA argues that the legislative intent of Cal OSHA regulations are not applicable in an employee's action against a third person not his employer. That is not the current state of the law.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

JOSE BEJAR VS. GEA WESTFALIA SEPARATOR INC

"[T]he provisions of this division, and the occupational safety and health standards and orders promulgated under this code, are applicable to proceedings against employers for the exclusive purpose of maintaining and enforcing employee safety." Lab. Code, § 6304.5. GEA argues that the legislative intent of Cal OSHA regulations are not applicable in an employee's action against a third person not his employer. That is not the current state of the law.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

JOSE BEJAR VS. GEA WESTFALIA SEPARATOR INC

"[T]he provisions of this division, and the occupational safety and health standards and orders promulgated under this code, are applicable to proceedings against employers for the exclusive purpose of maintaining and enforcing employee safety." Lab. Code, § 6304.5. GEA argues that the legislative intent of Cal OSHA regulations are not applicable in an employee's action against a third person not his employer. That is not the current state of the law.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

HOLE V. HU

Plaintiff alleges, among other things, negligence against both Hole and Hu based on violation of safety rules. Plaintiff contends the work he did for Defendant Hole qualified as “employment” under Labor Code section 6303(b) and therefore Hole was required to follow Cal OSHA safety rules. (Cortez v. Abich (2011) 51 Cal.4th 285, 288-289.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2018

WILLIAM DICKENS VS. STATEWIDE SEATING & GRANDSTANDS INC

(Civil Code § 3294(b)) Plaintiff produced evidence of problems with the structure in 2013, a report to OSHA and repairs in 2013. This injury occurred in November 2016. No evidence is presented that there was an OSHA issue as to the steps involved in Mr. Dickens' fall either in 2013 or 2016. The evidence presented shows that prior to this incident there were no other falls involving the steps to the press box and that both plaintiff and Mr. Dickens used these steps hundreds of times without incident.

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

WILLIAM DICKENS VS. STATEWIDE SEATING & GRANDSTANDS INC

(Civil Code § 3294(b)) Plaintiff produced evidence of problems with the structure in 2013, a report to OSHA and repairs in 2013. This injury occurred in November 2016. No evidence is presented that there was an OSHA issue as to the steps involved in Mr. Dickens' fall either in 2013 or 2016. The evidence presented shows that prior to this incident there were no other falls involving the steps to the press box and that both plaintiff and Mr. Dickens used these steps hundreds of times without incident.

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

WILLIAM DICKENS VS. STATEWIDE SEATING & GRANDSTANDS INC

(Civil Code § 3294(b)) Plaintiff produced evidence of problems with the structure in 2013, a report to OSHA and repairs in 2013. This injury occurred in November 2016. No evidence is presented that there was an OSHA issue as to the steps involved in Mr. Dickens' fall either in 2013 or 2016. The evidence presented shows that prior to this incident there were no other falls involving the steps to the press box and that both plaintiff and Mr. Dickens used these steps hundreds of times without incident.

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOSHUA SWEETEN VS TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ET AL

Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing (a) Turner is being sued for direct, not vicarious, liability, (b) Turner created the dangerous condition, (c) Turner retained control over the safety conditions of the project, and (d) Turner breached OSHA regulations in permitting the opaque covering to be placed over the elevator shaft without warning signs. a.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2018

JOSHUA SWEETEN VS TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ET AL

Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing (a) Turner is being sued for direct, not vicarious, liability, (b) Turner created the dangerous condition, (c) Turner retained control over the safety conditions of the project, and (d) Turner breached OSHA regulations in permitting the opaque covering to be placed over the elevator shaft without warning signs. a. Direct v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2018

DURAN V. FOUR START FRUIT, INC.

Third, if the moving party has met its burden of production, has the opposing party met its burden of producing evidence to show at least one triable issue of material fact See Food Safety Net Services v. Eco Safe Systems USA, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1124; see Hawkins v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2018

SANTOS VS CRENSHAW MANUFACTURING

. § 4558 is intended to address situations where the employer acted in disregard of worker safety. Thus, an employer who replaces the guard with another intended to make the power press safer does not satisfy the requirement that the employer know its acts increased the probability of serious injury or death. Saldana v. Globe-Weis Systems Co. (1991) 233 CA3d 1505, 1517-1519.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2018

FLEISCHMAN VS SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION

Fedco, Inc. (1994) 7 C4th 701, 723,, fn 7. the court stated that injuries resulting from an employer's violation of health and safety regulations is an expected part of the compensation bargain. Gunnell v. IvIetrocolor Labs (2001) 92 CA4th 710, 726; Vuillemainroy v. American Roclr and Asphalt, Inc. (1999) 70 CA4th 1280, 1285-1286. The Demurrer to the Third and Fourth Causes of Action for Retaliation is SUSTAINED. Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged an adverse employment action taken in retaliation.

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

FLEISCHMAN VS SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION

Fedco, Inc. (1994) 7 C4th 701, 723,, fn 7. the court stated that injuries resulting from an employer's violation of health and safety regulations is an expected part of the compensation bargain. Gunnell v. IvIetrocolor Labs (2001) 92 CA4th 710, 726; Vuillemainroy v. American Roclr and Asphalt, Inc. (1999) 70 CA4th 1280, 1285-1286. Plaintiff was given the opportunity to address this issue and has not provided contrary authority.

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CHRISTOPHER TAKIER, ET AL. V. PHYSICIAN’S AUTOMATED LABORATORIES, INC., ET AL.

Takier filed a complaint with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (the “OSHA Complaint”) based on Defendants’ alleged failure to replace the ceiling tiles above his workstation. (UMF 16.) Mr. Takier did not advise Defendants that he had filed the OSHA Complaint, and Defendants thus did not receive notice of the complaint until January 10, 2017, five days after Mr. Takier was separated from employment. (UMF 16.) Mr. Hallmark’s Alleged Disability and Requests for Accommodations.

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2018

FERNANDO OCTAVIO CATALAN VS ALL SERVICE DISPOSAL INC ET AL

The authority to issue citations under Labor Code, section 6428 lies with the Department of Safety and Health (“DOSH”). (People v. Super Ct. (Solus Indus. Innovations, LLC) (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 33, 43-45.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot bring a claim for violation of Labor Code, section 6400 or 6428 without first appealing the DOSH’s decision not to issue a citation against Defendant. (Mot. 5.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.