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

176-200 of 223 results

ANTONIO GUZMAN VS JACQUELINE OROZCO ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Oct 17, 2017

SILVA VS HICKEY

Defendants argue that the safe work place requirements placed on employers pursuant to the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973, Lab. Code, § 6300 et. seq. (“Cal- OSHA” of the “Act”) do not apply to them because they only “employed” plaintiff and his co- worker, Romero, to provide “domestic household service,” which is expressly excluded from the definition of “employment” under the Act. (Lab. C. § 6303 (a.).) For the reasons explained below, the court agrees.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2017

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX VS EDRIS PLASTICS MFG ET AL

(6) ‘Specifically authorized’ means an affirmative instruction issued by the employer prior to the time of the employee’s physical injury or death, but shall not mean any subsequent acquiescence in, or ratification of, removal of a point of operation safety guard.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2017

RUBEN MUNOZ VS OLIVER MACHINERY CO

Plaintiff alleges that at some point before the incident, the safety guard on the Oliver planer was removed, which exposed its cutting blades. (Complaint (“Compl.”), ¶ GN-1.) Further, Plaintiff alleges that the Oliver Planer did not contain a secondary automatic shutoff system that would disable the machine when the safety guard was removed. (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 07, 2017

JAVIER DIAZ VS A & R JUNIOR GLASS & WINDOWS INC ET AL

Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s claim fails because the FAC does not allege that he filed an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) claim. (Dem. 9.) Labor Code, section 6310 prohibits discrimination or retaliation against an employee who has: (1) Made any oral or written complaint to the division, other governmental agencies having statutory responsibility for or assisting the division with reference to employee safety or health, his or her employer, or his or her representative.

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2017

CARRIE MILLER ET AL VS ASCO SINTERING CO

He avers that the skylight should have had a 400-pound weight-bearing capacity under California OSHA standards and, given that Decedent fell through the subject skylight upon his advertent encounter with it, it is unlikely the skylight complied. Id., ¶ 17.

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2017

RIC1701838

Additionally, overruled as to 49 USC §20109, Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) preemption grounds theory. There is no objection to the Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) of moving Defendant and they are granted. The objection to No. 3 is sustained as to Plaintiff’s RJN and granted as to the remaining items.

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2017

BRANDT DANIELS VS WORTHE REAL ESTATE GROUP INC ET AL

In his opposition, the Plaintiff argues that other loading docks had ropes, that there had been a prior accident, and that there had been government agency inspections of the loading dock and orders issued by Cal-OSHA and other government agencies regarding the property. These arguments identify a basis for imposing a duty of care on the Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2017

BRANDON RIVERA VS HILLPOINTE CONSTRUCTION INC ET AL

The second quoted OSHA regulation here (skylight fall protection for employees) on the other hand is closer to the regulations at issue in Khosh or SeaBright because the second quoted OSHA regulation by its terms applies only where the employee is approaching a skylight. In that sense it is a manner-of-work safety regulation that may be fully complied with by the contractor by not having employees approach within six feet of a skylight or providing such employees alternative fall protection.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2017

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

JOHN K MURLEY VS ZIMMERMAN CONSTRUCTION INC ET AL

OSHA investigated the accident over several days and issued citations to CS Construction for workplace safety violations. (Hahn Dec., ¶3, Ex. 3, OSHA Inspection Report, dated 3-4-15.) Specifically, OSHA found that CS Construction had failed to secure the scaffolding to the house with brackets, as required under California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 1645(e). Ibid.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2017

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

JESUS MARTIN VAZQUEZ ET AL VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL

Plaintiff now seeks leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) to allege causes of action for: 1) negligence against Defendant; 2) breach of mandatory duties arising out of California Education Code sections 56340-56347 and 44839, Section 504 of Title II, and Cal/OSHA requirements; and (3) negligence per se. The Court may, in its discretion and after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 473(a)(1).

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2017

JUNAID VS. RADY CHILDRENS HOSPITAL SAN DIEGO

Superior Court (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 945, 951) The 8th cause of action for violation of Health and Safety Code § 1278.5 fails because plaintiff admitted he was not disciplined when he complained internally about safety concerns. (See, Defendants' Exs. K-M) No evidence is submitted by plaintiff to show he suffered an adverse employment action from reporting safety concerns. (See, Smith v. County of Santa Clara (U.S. Dist. Court N.D.

  • Hearing

    Jun 28, 2017

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JUNAID VS. RADY CHILDRENS HOSPITAL SAN DIEGO

Superior Court (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 945, 951) The 8th cause of action for violation of Health and Safety Code § 1278.5 fails because plaintiff admitted he was not disciplined when he complained internally about safety concerns. (See, Defendants' Exs. K-M) No evidence is submitted by plaintiff to show he suffered an adverse employment action from reporting safety concerns. (See, Smith v. County of Santa Clara (U.S. Dist. Court N.D.

  • Hearing

    Jun 28, 2017

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BURTECH PIPELINE INC VS CALIFORNIA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH APPEALS BOARD

This is particularly true given the deference accorded the Board given its particularized expertise in occupational safety. See, e.g. Teichert Construction v. California Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 883, 887-888; Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. California Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 684, 692.

  • Hearing

    May 04, 2017

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JESUS VALENCIA VS DAVID CALDERA ET AL

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.”

  • Hearing

    May 03, 2017

MANI MBI LLC VS MBIPCH LLC

Seller represents and warrants to and covenants with Buyer that, as of the date hereof and as of the Closing Date: … 6.5 Seller has received no uncured written notices of violation, cease and desist orders, notices of unsafe conditions or similar notices from the Los Angeles County Health Department, the Los Angeles County or City of Malibu Department of Building and Safety, state or federal OSHA authorities, or from any other applicable Governmental Authority of any condition at the Property, including, without

  • Hearing

    May 03, 2017

RICHARD PANEK VS CITY OF LONG BEACH

It is true that under Government Code section 12940 subdivision (a)(2), an employer is not liable for any act prohibited under FEHA if the employee “is unable to perform his or her essential duties, or cannot perform those duties in a manner that would not endanger his or her health or safety . . . even with reasonable accommodations.” However, as discussed above, there are material questions of fact as to whether Panek could perform the essential functions of the inspector position.

  • Hearing

    Apr 17, 2017

MANI MBI LLC VS MBIPCH LLC

Seller represents and warrants to and covenants with Buyer that, as of the date hereof and as of the Closing Date: … 6.5 Seller has received no uncured written notices of violation, cease and desist orders, notices of unsafe conditions or similar notices from the Los Angeles County Health Department, the Los Angeles County or City of Malibu Department of Building and Safety, state or federal OSHA authorities, or from any other applicable Governmental Authority of any condition at the Property, including, without

  • Hearing

    Mar 30, 2017

MIGUEL SALAZAR ET AL VS PATRICK MOYAL ET AL

“Nor is a hirer liable if the hazard is apparent, or becomes apparent, and ‘the contractor nonetheless failed to take appropriate safety precautions.’” Id. (citation omitted). “A hirer is also not liable where a worker is injured because the contractor ‘has failed to engage in inspections of the premises implicitly or explicitly delegated to it.’” Id. (citation omitted). Thus, “[u]nder the Kinsman [v.

  • Hearing

    Mar 20, 2017

TOMMY MUTTARAID ET AL VS PARKSIDE ENTERPRISES INC ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 07, 2017

KEVIN ROBERTS VS T MOBILE USA INC ET AL

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeal which had reversed the granting of summary judgment in favor of the airline based on the Privette/Toland doctrine, and rejected an argument that an exception could be established based on an argument that the lack of safety guards at certain points on the conveyor were required and that the airline had violated its nondelegable duties under Cal-OSHA safety regulations.

  • Hearing

    Feb 03, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GREGOR GOUMASHYAN VS INTERNATIONAL METALS EKCO LTD ET AL

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

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2017

LAWSON RITTINER VS NBC UNIVERSAL INC ET AL

The request seek all documents relating to any investigation performed by Cal/OSHA of the Carpenter incident, all photographs taken by Cal/OSHA relating to the incident, all incident or accident reports relating to the incident, all depositions from the Carpenter incident lawsuit, all expert reports from the Carpenter incident lawsuit, and all documents produced by defendant Universal City Studios, LLLP in response to Requests for Production served by plaintiff in the Carpenter incident lawsuit.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BC58094

The request seek all documents relating to any investigation performed by Cal/OSHA of the Carpenter incident, all photographs taken by Cal/OSHA relating to the incident, all incident or accident reports relating to the incident, all depositions from the Carpenter incident lawsuit, all expert reports from the Carpenter incident lawsuit, and all documents produced by defendant Universal City Studios, LLLP in response to Requests for Production served by plaintiff in the Carpenter incident lawsuit.

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.