Cal/OSHA Health and Safety Regulations in California

Plaintiff states the following: (1) On December 5, 2017, Plaintiff served his 66-page PAGA Notice re: health and safety violations, including violations of occupational health and safety standards under Labor Code section 6300, et seq., that Plaintiff uncovered at CSU campuses. (see Tyler C. Vanderpool Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. B); [FOOTNOTE 1] (2) On February 1, 2018, Cal/OSHA responded to the PAGA Notice, requesting additional information (see id., ¶ 4, Ex.

, 2016, Real Party in Interest, California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal OSHA) assessed Petitioner citations and penalties for violations of occupational safety and health standards codified in California Code of Regulations, title 8. (AR, 000001-00006.) Cal OSHA served Petitioner with notices of the citations and penalties by certified mail. (Lab. Code, §6317.) Petitioner alleges that it electronically filed a notice of appeal on November 7, 2016.

Interrogatory No. 37 asks about violations of the Health and Safety Code. The response is inadequate. By using the term “inter alia” in Response No. 37, Plaintiff indicates that her list of violated code sections is incomplete. Plaintiff is to provide supplemental responses listing all code sections she contends Defendant violated. Nos. 38, 39, 40, 55 ask how Defendant violated the Health and Safety Code sections and for facts supporting that contention.

Supreme Court considered whether the OSHA exceeded its authority by mandating all employers with more than 100 employees to require their employees to undergo Covid-19 vaccination or take weekly Covid-19 tests at their own expense. The SCOTUS held that OSHA lacked the statutory authority to impose such a requirement on virtually all employers, explaining that OSHA is empowered to “set workplace safety standards, not broad public health measures . . ..

The California Supreme Court recently held that a UCL claim based on workforce safety regulations is not preempted. The federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. section 651 et seq. (the “Federal OSH Act”) establishes a comprehensive regulatory scheme for workplace safety and health.

A state, such as California, with a federally approved OSHA plan may not adopt less protective workplace safety standards than those developed by Fed/OSHA, but is free to establish more stringent standards. United Air Lines, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Board (1982) 32 C.3d 762, 772; Overaa Construction v. California Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Board (2007) 147 C.A.4th 235, 247.” (AR 1428.)

Slavin asserts that he and Navistar both understood that the OSHA standard protected workers, and they also understood that amphibole fibers posed a greater risk of harm to workers than chrysotile fibers, so that the OSHA standard, which applied to both types of asbestos fibers, created an additional level of safety. (UMF Nos. 63-66.)

"[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.

Plaintiffs contend that the CITY does not have qualified immunity under Health & Safety Code Section 1799.107 because CITY firefighters acted with gross negligence. The provisions of Section 1799.107 do not preclude the absolute immunity provided under Government Code Section 850.4. Moreover, the complaint does not allege facts indicating gross negligence on the part of the CITY firefighters.

The first amended complaint refers to various statutes and regulations, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). (FAC, ¶¶ 55-63.)

Cal/OSHA safety and health complaint handling simplified process posted on the Division of Occupational Safety and Healths website. (Exh. Q.) Exhibit Q may also be access on the Division of Occupational Safety and Healths website through the following link: https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/caloshacomplaintflowchart.html GRANTED. The Court may take judicial notice of agency publications. ( Board of Education, supra, 63 Cal.2d at 836.) 18.

Plaintiff alleges a contract between C&L and DGFS where C&L accepts sole liability for safety at the site: “Subcontractor (C&L) is an independent contractor and shall comply with all laws, orders, citations, rules, regulations, standards and statutes affecting or relating to this Subcontract Agreement or its performance, including but not limited to those with respect to occupational health and safety . . . and accepts sole responsibility for providing a safe place to work for its employees and for employees

The first cause of action alleges Cal/OSHA preempts the field as to employee health and safety regulations and Long Beach Municipal Code §5.49.040 conflicts with the OSHA regulations. Plaintiff alleges that the measure was touted as one to protect the safety of workers. It also states a purpose was to improve working conditions for hotel employees.

Now, one year into the pandemic, various agencies, including the health departments and Cal/OSHA, have provided guidance on COVID safety. In addition, the Legislature has provided some guidance on COVID safety in the workplace. (See, e.g. Labor Code 6409.6 [employers are required to notify employees of COVID positive persons].)

OSHA Plaintiffs suggest that Alston retained control over safety conditions because Alston could not have delegated the responsibility of providing safe access or complying with Title 8 California Code of Regulations §§ 1511(b), 1644, 3212(a)(1), or any other applicable Cal. OSHA regulations. (Opp. 17:13.) But, OSHA regulations are delegable. (See SeaBright Ins. Co. v.

In 1999, the Legislature amended Labor Code section 6304.53 to provide that the statutes governing workplace safety (§§ 6300 et seq. (Cal–OSHA)), as well as “occupational safety and health standards adopted under [Cal–OSHA],” are admissible under Evidence Code sections 452 and 669 “in the same manner as any other statute, ordinance, or regulation.” Suarez v. Pacific Northstar Mechanical, Inc. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 430, 439–440.

The complaint alleges the defendants are liable because they did not comply with the applicable safety statutes, such as the OSHA requirements. However, a homeowner that hires an unlicensed tree trimmer is not liable for damages caused by the failure to comply with OSHA requirements. (Fernandez v. Lawson (2003) 34 Cal.4th 31, 37.) Presumably, this rule applies to all similar safety statutes. The defendants shall give notice.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] Standard 1917.116(c) states: No elevator or escalator with a defect which affects safety shall be used.

These citations did not relate to COVID-19 protocols or safety. Plaintiff sent an amended notice to OSHA on July 9, 2020. The complaint does not allege when OSHA began its inspection, however, the citations show that inspections started on August 10, 2020. (Defendant’s RJN 2.) Using the August 10 date does not help Defendant’s argument as this date is past both the three and fourteen day time limits in Labor Code section 6309.

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.

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.)

State of California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, et al.

Instead, Alston was required by Cal OSHA to require its subcontractors to follow certain safety guidelines. Cal OSHA determined that Alston did NOT violate of any Cal OSHA safety standards and dismissed the citation. (DSS 23.) The Cal OSHA Appeals Board made the following findings: “On August 3, 2015, Leonel Torres (Torres), a KML employee, fell through a skylight on the roof when he was not wearing fall protection.

Plaintiff is certified with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”), which subjects him to both criminal and civil liability if he knowingly partakes in an OSHA violation. (TAC, ¶ 11.) Defendants were aware of Plaintiff’s certifications. (Ibid.) In or around November 2016, Plaintiff had a meeting with his supervisor and principal of the school, Billups, regarding installation of a kiln in the closet of the art classroom. (TAC, ¶ 14a.)

.: 34-2018-80003007 RELATIONS, DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH APPEALS BOARD, Respondent/Defendant, BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS, Real Party in Interest.

Alternatively, Plaintiffs contend that Alston violated Cal OSHA safety standards, and somehow this violation evidences Alston’s retained control over safety conditions. However, evidence of OSHA violations cannot be admitted in a personal injury or wrongful death action except as between the employee and employer. (Lab. Code 6304.5.) It is undisputed that Torres is not an employee of Alston.

been installed dangerously close to a sidewalk and railroad main track, and the tank’s overpressure release valve had never been replaced despite being more than 40 years old, FAC, ¶ 9; 3) the overpressure release valve activated and discharged propane gas, which caused two explosions, FAC, ¶¶ 10-11; 4) Plaintiff suffered third degree burns in the ensuing blaze, FAC, ¶ 12; and 5) the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“OSHA”) expressly found that Defendants violated Title 8 of the California

Evidentiary Objections Plaintiffs’ objections: The objections are centered on the use of the OSHA citations of Vo and/or ABI as a basis for absolving Weinmann of liability. They are sustained. OSHA citations of ABI are irrelevant to the issue of Weinmann’s liability because OSHA investigates the actions of the employer and not third parties. Defendant’s objections: Both experts for plaintiffs have objectionable statements in their declarations, treading on the function of the jury. They are sustained.

Two of the reports (Schultz Report, Exhibit 4 to Index of Evidence in Support of Motion, and Phillips 66 Report, Exhibit 6) were seemingly prepared on behalf of defendants and other reports were allegedly prepared by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health and produced in response to a subpoena. (Exhibit 5 to Index of Evidence.) In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs argue defendant has failed to meet its initial burden to show entitlement to judgment.

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.

The statute providing that the California Occupational Safety and Health Act (Cal-OSHA) provisions are "applicable to proceedings against employers for the exclusive purpose of maintaining and enforcing employee safety" does not in any way abrogate the doctrine that a hirer of a contractor is liable to the contractor's employee only insofar as the hirer's exercise of retained control affirmatively contributes to the employee's injuries, nor does it expand a general contractor's duty of care to an injured employee

Nothing in the record establishes (1) Martin had any responsibility for health or safety, (2) his position in the company gave him authority to espouse policy on health and safety, or (3) anyone at Bendix ratified the letter or endorsed his attitude. (Id. at 439-440). E.A. Martin's letter and memo are both inadmissible hearsay and therefore irrelevant under Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b) because E.A.

In or around January 2018, Plaintiff conducted online research and collected data about OxyCide’s chemicals and potential adverse health effects from websites such as OSHA, CDC, and Ecolab to present to her employer. (SAC, ¶ 34.) Defendant’s product safety information states that OxyCide Cleaner does not require personal protective equipment when automatically diluted, which contradicted other governmental and private agency reports. (Id.)

The Court REMANDS the case to the Board with instructions to SET ASIDE the Denial of the Petition for Reconsideration that found that the Division of Occupational Safety and Health lacked jurisdiction and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this order. PLEASE NOTE: SHOULD ANY PARTY CONTEST THE TENTATIVE RULING, THE HEARING ON THE MOTION SHALL BE HEARD AT 3:00 P.M. RATHER THAN AT 1:30 P.M. AS WAS PREVIOUSLY NOTICED.

RESPONDING PARTY: Non-Party, State of California, acting by and through the Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal-OSHA) (No Opposition) TRIAL DATE: May 6, 2024 MOTION: (1) Defendants Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One. (2) Request for Sanctions Tentative Rulings: (1) Motion to Compel is GRANTED as to inspection only.

Plaintiffs MIL No. 15 Plaintiffs move to preclude arguments that Defendant complied with government safety standards as more prejudicial than probative. Plaintiffs argue that satisfying standards on safety is irrelevant to the issue of a defect. However, Plaintiffs also assert a negligence cause of action and seek punitive damages. Compliance with safety standards could be relevant in those regards. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.

California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health v. California Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board, 19STCP02756 Tentative decision on demurrer: sustained without leave Respondent California Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (“Board”) demurs to the Petition for writ of mandate filed by Petitioner California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Division”).

Abich (2011) 51 Cal.4th 285, 291-92 (emphasis added)) Labor Code sec. 6304.5 provides that “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 .” In other words, the Labor Code and related case law indicate OSHA is intended to protect employees, as PSC argues. But in Elsner v.

Abich (2011) 51 Cal.4th 285, 291-92 (emphasis added)) Labor Code sec. 6304.5 provides that “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 .” In other words, the Labor Code and related case law indicate OSHA is intended to protect employees, as PSC argues. But in Elsner v.

(Direct Relief), was injured on August 10, 2017, as a result of Direct Relief’s violating multiple Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations and other statutes. (FAC, ¶ GN-1.) Direct Relief was cited for failing to have two people at the warehouse at all times while employees were performing work but stating in its records that two employees were working together. (Ibid.)

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.

In 2010, Boulevard and BAG retained Celly to provide safety consulting and safety-related services. The president of Celly was an OSHA expert and a Board-Certified Safety Professional. At the time of the incident, he handled Celly’s duties as they pertained to Boulevard and BAG. Celly provided OSHA consulting services to ensure Boulevard’s compliance with Cal/OSHA and other government regulations.

Plaintiff also alleges that he was terminated unlawfully based not only upon his alleged disability, but also because he raised concern about violations of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) standards. Plaintiff asserts 11 causes of action, as well as a prayer for punitive damages. Now, Defendants move to strike the prayer for punitive damages and all related allegations.

Case Number: 22STCP04305 Hearing Date: May 3, 2023 Dept: 86 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH v.

and health,” etc.

.); and (2) whether Defendant Kerr Corporation's failure to warn was done with a conscious disregard of the safety of others to warrant punitive damages. (Tentative ruling continued, see next entry)

.: 37-2021-00031336-CU-PO-CTL CASE TITLE: ROLDAN VS DAL PEZZO [IMAGED] CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: PI/PD/WD - Other EVENT TYPE: Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication, 02/22/2023 Plaintiffs' Evidentiary Objection to the portion of the State of California, Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health Inspection and Accident Report finding that no employee/employer relationship

The court found that even if the promotion of health and safety was one of the city's purposes in passing the ordinance, that did not make it automatically preempted; it was only a factor in a nuanced inquiry into whether the effect of the ordinance would regulate a field that the state had reserved to itself. Id. at 190.

The Court in SeaBright expressly found that “[t]he delegation – which…is implied as an incident of an independent contractor’s hiring – included a duty to identify the absence of the safety guards required by Cal-OSHA regulations and to take reasonable steps to address that hazard.” (Id.).

If an excavated trench is six feet or deeper and at least thirty inches wide, Cal/OSHA 1541(1) Construction Safety Order requires the excavating party to build a walkway with guardrails.

The California Occupational Safety and Health Act (“Cal-OSHA”) requires that “[e]very employer shall furnish employment and a place of employment that is safe and healthful for the employees therein.” (Labor Code § 6400(a).) “Employment” is defined as including “the carrying on of any trade, enterprise, project, industry, business, occupation, including all excavation, demolition, and construction work . . . in which any person is engaged or permitted to work for hire, except household domestic service.”

First, Sunbelt argues that Junior Steel violated numerous safety provisions of the California Occupational Safety and Health Act (Labor Code section 6300 et seq.) and regulations promulgated thereunder (collectively, Cal-OSHA) and these criminal violations are superseding acts which cut off Sunbelts liability.

Defendants contend the ladder was properly furnished and complied with OSHA regulations, and was otherwise properly secured. Facts 5 and 6 are disputed. First, the Declaration of Mendoza with respect to compliance with OSHA is objectionable as Defendants have not established that he is a safety expert. Plaintiffs’ objection thereto is sustained on that ground. Plaintiffs’ evidence creates a triable issue.

Abich (2011) 51 Cal.4th 285, 291, “Whether unlicensed contractors or their workers may or must be deemed the homeowners' employees under section 2750.5, either for purposes of tort liability generally or with regard to Cal–OSHA [(California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973) (§ 6300 et seq.) ] specifically, are difficult and unsettled questions in this court.]

California Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Bd. , (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1023, 1027. DOSH has the burden of proving a violation of a safety order by preponderance of evidence. RJN Ex.

California Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Bd. , (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1023, 1027. DOSH has the burden of proving a violation of a safety order by preponderance of evidence. RJN Ex.

On August 4, 2013, Burkhart contacted the Dental Board of California expressing various health and safety concerns, including the requirement to do laser treatment without certification and defendants� failure to obtain complete patient histories before performing dentistry. (Complaint, �� 26-27.) On August 10, 2013, Burkhart contacted Cal-OSHA about improper disposal of biohazard waste after frequently complaining to Kopel. (Complaint, � 30.)

The complaint alleges—albeit through the Cal-OSHA alleged findings—that the defendants, not the contractor, removed the safety barriers and therefore bore responsibility for the fall, and death, of the contractor’s worker. (See ¶13, Complaint, 4:10-15.) The facts underlying this death need to be fleshed out before the court may determine whether Privette applies. Motion to Strike The motion of the defendants to strike portions of the complaint is DENIED.

With regard to the safety of its own employees, it is undisputed that Trinity was required at all times to be in compliance with all health and safety requirements and training and was required to maintain a competent person responsible for all safety and health requirements at the project. (See evidence cited by UMF 25.)

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant violated Labor Code section 6401 and California Occupational Safety and Health Act (Cal-OSHA) section 1511 and was negligent per se. Labor Code section 6401 states: Every employer shall furnish and use safety devices and safeguards, and shall adopt and use practices, means, methods, operations, and processes which are reasonably adequate to render such employment and place of employment safe and healthful.

The California Department of Occupational Safety and Health ("Cal-OSHA") found that subcontractor Largo did not adequately design, detail, support and brace the shoring system. (Exhibit D to the Declaration of Eric Despotes, at page 3, ¶ 10-11.) The Cal-OSHA report also references in one location use of "counterfeit clamps" which were retrieved from the site. (Exhibit D to the Declaration of Eric Despotes, at page 3, ¶16) Plaintiffs' argue the counterfeit clamps were provided by the Settling Defendant.

Nevertheless, the publication of OSHA standards in the Federal Register and the US Department of Labor publication of safety and health standards under the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act is insufficient to impute knowledge of the hazards of asbestos to Defendant.

Health and Safety Code Section 1278.5; 2. Violation of Labor Code Section 98.6 and 1102.5 (Whistleblowing); 3. Violation of Labor Code § 6310; 4. Recovery of Civil Penalties pursuant to the Cal/OSHA (Labor Code § 6427 et. seq.); 5. Discrimination; 6. Hostile Work Environment; 7. Retaliation in violation of Government Code § 12940(h); 8. Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps Necessary to Prevent Discrimination, Retaliation, and Harassment; and 9. Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy.

Plaintiff allegedly filed a complaint with the California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Cal/OSHA”) regarding Defendant’s safety violations and allegedly illegal business practices. On or about March 10, 2017, Plaintiff allegedly refused an order from Defendant to operate a forklift and informed his manager that he would not violate the law.

What is “it” and what portion of Cal-OSHA regulations were violated?) Plaintiffs allege “unlicensed, uncertified, and untrained” individuals were allowed to operate forklifts.

As testified by Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) investigator Terry Hammer, on the website it actually gives a history of how the business was started in the 1980s and how they have 15-plus acres of land dedicated to growing these . . . gorgeous flowers. And you can order online. (AR 258.)

First, Sunbelt argues that Junior Steel violated numerous safety provisions of the California Occupational Safety and Health Act (Labor Code section 6300 et seq.) and regulations promulgated thereunder (collectively, Cal-OSHA) and these criminal violations are superseding acts which cut off Sunbelts liability.

Arconics proposed definition for safety violations is safety hazards in the workplace that pose risks to the health and safety of employees and do not comply with the health and safety standards set forth under Cal/OSHA. (JSS, pg. 8.) Arconic asserts Plaintiffs definition of maintenance request renders these interrogatories overly broad. (JSS, pg. 9.)

In fact, the settlement explicitly states that: The parties further stipulate that neither employer's’ agreement to compromise this matter nor any statement contained in this agreement shall be admissible in any other proceeding, either legal, equitable, or administrative, except for purposes of administration and enforcement of the California Occupational Safety and Health Act and in proceedings before the Appeals Board is not admissible for the truth of the findings. (RJN, Ex. 3, ¶ 4.)

.: 34-2015-80002204 OBAYASHl CORP., A JOINT VENTURE, Petitioner, 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 * * If oral argument is requested, it will be conducted remotelv through the Zoom application and live-streamed on the court's YouTube page.

As recognized by the State Public Health Officer, the continuance of certain community level mitigation measures, especially in high transmission risk settings, is appropriate. (Page 2) 72. This Order will be revised in the future, if needed, to reflect the State Executive Orders, California Division of Occupational Safety and Healths (better known as Cal/OSHA) worksite requirements, State Public Health Officer Orders and guidance, and CDC recommendations.

Watts' awareness of OSHA regulations and his failure to implement safety procedures or heed warnings as alleged in response to the Sixth Affirmative Defense. (Id.) The Court finds that Toyota's discovery response as to the Seventh Affirmative Defense is not factually devoid and thus DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the Seventh Affirmative Defense.

provide occupational health safety training instruction, adequate meetings, training programs, and other circumstances for effective communications about work hazards and labor/management safety and health committees.

Plaintiffs entire argument is based upon the fact that Defendants violated OSHA procedure, while citing to Fernandez v. Latvson (2003) 31 Cal.4 31, which held that private homeowners hiring temporary workers are not bound by OSHA. The fact that Governor Newsom has put together an advisory committee focused on ensuring the health and safety of domestic workers is not case law or statute that would overturn Fernandez s ruling. Therefore, the OSHA requirements are irrelevant to this case.

Plaintiffs entire argument is based upon the fact that Defendants violated OSHA procedure, while citing to Fernandez v. Latvson (2003) 31 Cal.4 31, which held that private homeowners hiring temporary workers are not bound by OSHA. The fact that Governor Newsom has put together an advisory committee focused on ensuring the health and safety of domestic workers is not case law or statute that would overturn Fernandez s ruling. Therefore, the OSHA requirements are irrelevant to this case.

NOTE': This section shall not apply to protective apparel regulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board.” This might be the basis for a claim, but it would require allegations that face coverings were part of a “uniform,” which circles back to the analysis in the IWC “tropical shirt” letter. Vons in reply identifies 29 CFR § 1910.132 as relevant authority. 29 CFR § 1910.132 sets out when an employer must provide and pay for protective equipment.

Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk. The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect. For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517. Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.

Ordinarily, an injured plaintiff may use workplace safety laws (and derivative orders/regulations) adopted pursuant to Cal-OSHA to show the appropriate duty or standard of care. Id. at ¶ 2:907. However, this does not override a passive hirer's nonliability for injury to a contractor's employee. Id. The hirer's violation of a Cal-OSHA safety law or order cannot be relied on to establish liability except where the hirer affirmatively contributed to the employee's injuries. Id.

Judicial Notice : Plaintiff request judicial notice of 1) a decision of the Occupational Safety and Health’s (“OSHA”) Appeal Board and 2) excerpts from the OSHA Technical Manual. The Court DENIES the request as to the first exhibit but GRANTS it as to the second exhibit under Evidence Code 452(h), matters not reasonably subject to dispute. DEMURRER – OVERRULED Whether Section 15 is Vague?

The accident occurred on May 5, 2014, and OSHA took over and plaintiff had no access to the container until January 8, 2016. Plaintiff provided evidence he was not allowed access to the crane or to witness interviews until after the conclusion of proceedings before the California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and Health. The OSHA file shows how the department had to issue a subpoena before plaintiff had any access to the container.

The second cause of action alleged in very general terms violations of the ADA, OSHA regulations, Health & Safety Code statutes and building codes. However, it failed to specify what particular statutes, regulations or codes had been violated, or the factual predicates to support the alleged violation(s).

The second cause of action alleged in very general terms violations of the ADA, OSHA regulations, Health & Safety Code statutes and building codes. However, it failed to specify what particular statutes, regulations or codes had been violated, or the factual predicates to support the alleged violation(s).

The second cause of action alleged in very general terms violations of the ADA, OSHA regulations, Health & Safety Code statutes and building codes. However, it failed to specify what particular statutes, regulations or codes had been violated, or the factual predicates to support the alleged violation(s).

The regulatory duty asserted by plaintiffs, however, is not the regulatory duty to maintain a safe workplace under Cal-OSHA regulations. Here, as Michaels points out, Cal-OSHA did not cite Michaels for violating Cal-OSHA regulations. The Privette rule applies where the regulatory duty is for workplace safety, as under Cal-OSHA regulations, not where the regulatory duty exists generally and pre-exists the contract with the independent contractor. (See SeaBright Ins. Co. v.

Prior to his passing, Decedent had no information that Honeywell ever acted with intent to harm him or with conscious disregard for his health and safety. (Id. ¶¶ 5-6.) Through special interrogatories, Honeywell asked Plaintiffs to identify all facts, witnesses and documents to support their punitive damages claim. (PRDSS ¶ 7.)

Plaintiff also alleges that in October 2015 he sent several e-mails to Patrick and Timothy Horwath, officers and directors of S&H, regarding what plaintiff believed to be health, safety, and legal violations and demanded corrective action be taken. (Id., ¶ 70, Exh. D.) Some of these e-mails pertained to employee health and safety. (See id., Exh. D.)

Correa and Defendant failed to provide proper safety equipment as required by Cal-OSHA; 2. Such failures caused Plaintiff’s injuries; 3. Pursuant to Labor Code 3708, there is a presumption of negligence on the part of Correa, because he was an unlicensed contractor; 4. Because Correa was an unlicensed contractor, he was the employee of Defendant, and therefore, Defendant is liable for Correa’s negligence by virtue of respondent superior.

The issue in SeaBright, supra, was "whether the hirer can be liable to the contractor's employees for workplace injuries allegedly resulting from the hirer's failure to comply with safety requirements of Cal–OSHA and its regulations. That raises the question whether the tort law duty, if any, to comply with Cal–OSHA and its regulations for the benefit of an independent contractor's employees is nondelegable, an issue we discuss below." Id., at 600.

In October 2016, Plaintiff complained to Defendant about the lack of adequate bathroom facilities and filed a complaint with the Carson Building and Safety Department. ( Id . at ¶ 11.) In 2018, Plaintiff complained about various unsafe conditions located Defendants Long Beach drop yard. ( Id . at ¶ 12.) Plaintiff filed and assisted others in filing multiple complaints related to unsafe working conditions with the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) in Long Breach in 2018. ( Id . at ¶¶ 13-14.)

Employers may not discharge or otherwise discriminate against employees for (1) filing a complaint relating to employee safety; (2) instituting or causing to be instituted a safety proceeding; (3) testifying in any such proceeding; or (4) exercising any rights afforded employees under the health and safety laws. (Lab. Code, §6310.)

The Board and the Division The Division has primary responsibility for administering and enforcing the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973 (“CalOSHA”). §6300 et seq. The Division inspects workplaces and issues citations for violations of the safety orders adopted by the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board. §§ 142, 6307, 6308 et seq.

Plaintiff alleges that, at the time of his accident, Atkinson/Walsh was subject to an investigation by the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Caltrans (“OSHA investigation”) stemming from a bridge deck collapse that injured and killed several Atkinson/Walsh employees a few months prior. Plaintiff alleges that Caltrans and RCTC directed Mintz and others to “whitewash” the incident so that it would not affect the ongoing OSHA investigation or otherwise cause negative publicity.

In reply, Defendant argues it did not violate then-existing OSHA or Cal-OSHA regulations, did not develop an alternative formula with the intent to harm its users, and put warnings on its products. (Reply at p. 4-5.) Defendant does not cite law that complying with regulations is a defense to punitive damages.

Here, the fifth cause of action alleges, “ As set forth herein, Defendants engaged, and continue to engage, in unlawful and/or unfair business practices to the detriment of Plaintiff, in a manner which is forbidden by law and offends established public policy to protect the public, and/or is in violation of duties as required by statute and regulations, including but not limited to Labor Code § 7300 et seq., the Elevator Safety Code (ASME A17.1 Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators), and OSHA Safety Orders

Plaintiff allegedly filed a complaint with the California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Cal/OSHA”) regarding Defendant’s safety violations and allegedly illegal business practices. On or about March 10, 2017, Plaintiff allegedly refused an order from Defendant to operate a forklift and informed his manager that he would not violate the law.

The testimony of employees of the division shall not be admissible as expert opinion or with respect to the application of occupational safety and health standards.” Lab. Code, § 6304.5 Other than an expression of interest regarding the depositions, Plaintiff offers no legally supported argument regarding the likelihood in obtaining admissible testimony. The court therefore denies the motion on this specific item as well based on a lack of showing of the necessity for the subject discovery.

Accordingly, plaintiffs here cannot recover in tort from defendant US Airways on a theory that employee Verdon’s workplace injury resulted from defendant’s breach of what plaintiffs describe as a nondelegable duty under Cal-OSHA regulations to provide safety guards on the conveyor.”). Further, plaintiff fails to present sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of a breach. The motion is therefore GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED.

As stated above, the OSHA report indicates that the injuries were caused by Corona’s failure to wear a seatbelt. (Joint Stip. Ex. 8, 000005.) OSHA cited IRP for failing to ensure that the operator was wearing the seatbelt. (Id.) Based on the OSHA report, it appears that IRP and Corona were at least partially responsible for the accident. The OSHA report does not establish that Mamco did not also contribute to the accident.