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

201-225 of 225 results

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

RICHARD JOHNSON VS. CHARLES PANKOW BUILDERS LTD. ET AL

The alleged violation of Cal-OSHA regulations does not create a triable issue per Seabright Ins. v. US Airways, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 590. Mr. Johnson's reliance on Evard v. Southern California Edison (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 137 is misplaced because the regulation at issue in Evard "required the owner of a billboard to maintain horizontal safety lines on the billboard [which] imposed an ongoing, nondelegable duty.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2017

BLANCA RAMOS VS. PANADERIA TIKAL, INC., ET AL

The Plaintiff then argues that issues such as the failure to pay wages, the failure to comply with safety regulations, or derogatory comments about the Plaintiff are not risks inherent in the employment relationship. These opinions are not supported by any legal authority holding that the failure to pay wages, the failure to comply with safety regulations, or the use of derogatory comments are not a risk inherent in the employment relationship.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2017

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

RAFAEL A. GODOY ET AL VS THE ARGEN CORPORATION ET AL

It further pleads that Brush Wellman concealed beryllium’s toxic hazard from OSHA and its customers. Complaint ¶¶ 22-28. Unlike Jones, however, the complaint does not plead the existence of published studies. See Toole v. Richardson-Merrell Inc. (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 689, 714 (citing the fact that “respectable medical publications began to challenge the toxicity and efficacy of MER/29 ….”)

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2016

TAHYASHA BROWN VS HNJ STARFISH

The “‘Division’ means the Division of Occupational Safety and Health.” (Lab. Code, § 6302(d).) Nothing in the plain language of the complaint alleges that the Division of Occupational Safety and Health exercises statutory authority over workplace conduct between employees at PLAINITFF’s workplace, or that PLAINTIFF made a complaint made a complaint to the “Division,” thereby leading to retaliatory action. [Complaint ¶¶ 10, 21.]

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2016

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MUSIJ VS NVISION GLASS

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.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MUSIJ VS NVISION GLASS

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.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GEORGE AZER VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

The court there held: We do not believe the Legislature could have possibly intended such an absurd result, which could be depicted by an image of an employer following an employee and firing him or her just before the employee reached the Cal–OSHA filing window, complaint in hand. (See Robinson v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2016

ALEXANDER LAWRENCE VS CITY OF LONG BEACH

Although plaintiff's opening brief states that Captains Murrieta and Ponder were transferred out of station 118 after they reported department violation of Cal–OSHA safety regulations, the brief does not cite to the record to support that assertion.” (Mueller, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at p. 822.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2016

DANIEL HORWATH VS PATRICK HORWATH ET AL

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.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2016

RENAUD V. WILLIAM L. EBBLING, INC.

Plaintiff alleges that she was terminated for complaining “to defendants” about safety procedures in regards to needles and other CALOSHA violations, as well as for the police report. The court agrees that the allegation regarding needles and OSHA violations is entirely too vague to support the cause of action. However, the cause of action is also based on the police report, which defendant does not address in the context of this cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2016

AARON NEVATT VS. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVER ET AL

Nevatt provided to Cal/OSHA led that agency to institute proceedings against SFSU. These allegations are sufficient to support the requirement of protected activity for the second cause of action and are not negated by the facts stated in the Board's separate statement. (See the Board's Facts 27-28 (the only facts about Mr. Nevatt's disclosure to Cal/OSHA)). By his Additional Facts 1-2, 4-12, 14-15, 27-29, and 33, Mr.

  • Hearing

    Apr 29, 2016

JOHN ELIASON VS AMPERSAND PUBLISHING LLC ET AL

In March 2014, plaintiff complained to Cal-OSHA that the News-Press building contained a significant mold problem that was a health risk to him and other employees. Two weeks later, plaintiff was terminated. After plaintiff was terminated, McCaw and Katich allegedly told several businesses in the Santa Barbara area that plaintiff had been fired and not to hire him.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2015

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

JERIES ALRABADI VS. WALMART STORES INC

Bailey, MBA; and (b) what appears to be a print-out from the Occupational Safety & Health Administration's ("OSHA") website regarding an "Ergonomic Principles Index."

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2015

JOHN ELIASON VS AMPERSAND PUBLISHING LLC ET AL

Plaintiff made multiple complaints to Katich and others at the News Press about the water damage and mold growth, and about his health concerns, but his complaints were ignored. On March 4, 2014, plaintiff filed a complaint with Cal-OSHA about the mold growth problem. Two weeks later, after returning from vacation, plaintiff was terminated. Plaintiff claims that he was terminated for filing a complaint with Cal-OSHA.

  • Hearing

    May 29, 2015

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

GARRETT BURKHART VS BORIS ZAK ET AL

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.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2014

KURT WALTER VS. AW CHESTERTON COMPANY

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.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2012

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

KURT WALTER VS. AW CHESTERTON COMPANY

Compliance with OSHA is evidence that tends to disprove a claim of negligence against Pneumo Abex, much less establish clear and convincing evidence of fraud or malice. Plaintiffs note that Mr. Bretz testified in a previous deposition that he learned of asbestos-related health hazards in the early 1960s because the topic appeared in trade magazines and was discussed among Abex's sales and manufacturing employees. (SSUMF, No. 50).

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2012

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

KURT WALTER VS. AW CHESTERTON COMPANY

This evidence supports that Hennessy complied with post-OSHA regulations within a year (1972-1973) and provided a warning of the dangers of asbestos exposure if such exposures occurred. That the warning may not have listed all available protective measures does not show that Hennessy's conduct was fraudulent or deceitful.

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2012

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

LUIS GONZALEZ VS. ANDREA DEBERRY ET AL

Assuming without deciding that for the Cal-OSHA regulations do not apply under the household domestic service exception, there is still a triable issue whether Mr. Parsley, defendants' employee, breached his common law duty of care by failing to give plaintiff proper instructions and safety equipment and by providing a weathered rope to perform his duties.

  • Hearing

    Sep 07, 2012

LUIS GONZALEZ VS. ANDREA DEBERRY ET AL

Assuming without deciding that for the Cal-OSHA regulations do not apply under the household domestic service exception, there is still a triable issue whether Mr. Parsley, defendants' employee, breached his common law duty of care by failing to give plaintiff proper instructions and safety equipment and by providing a weathered rope to perform his duties.

  • Hearing

    Sep 07, 2012

ESMERALDA AVILA ET AL VS HELEN MICHAELS ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2012

RICHARD STEINER ET AL VS ADVANCE AUTO PARTS ET AL

In support of this statement, plaintiffs refer to their response to special interrogatories in which plaintiffs assert that Nissan made intentional misrepresentations and warranties of safety. (Eberlein decl., exhibit T, 4:1-20.) The statements recited in that response to special interrogatories do not, however, provide any specific information as to any marketing statement, label or instruction constituting, directly or indirectly, an affirmative representation of safety.

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2011

ALEX GONZALES VS ALPHA PLUMBING ET AL

Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated health and safety standards of the State of California, OSHA and city and county building codes. [SSUMF ##1-8] McGillivray was the general contractor and Alpha was a subcontractor on the project. The subcontractor agreement provided that Alpha would indemnify McGillivray against all claims arising out of Alpha’s operations, including personal injury claims.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2009

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.