Source: https://trellis.law/ca/issue-type/health-and-safety-regulations-cal-osha-195
Timestamp: 2020-07-11 23:17:39
Document Index: 263647852

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 667', '§ 17500', '§ 6304', '§ 669', '§ 3345', '§ 5', '§6300', '§ 142', '§ 1509', '§6300', '§ 142']

What are Cal/OSHA health and safety regulations?
Federal OSHA and California OSHA — No Preemption under Solutus Indus. Innovations, LLC v. Sup. Ct. (2018) 4 Cal. 5th 316.
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. In enacting the Federal OSH Act, Congress gave the states the option to “assume responsibility for development and enforcement of occupational safety and health standards” (29 U.S.C. § 667(b)) provided the state plan is approved by the federal Secretary of Labor.
In California, worker safety is governed generally by the California Occupational Safety and Health Act, LC section 6300 et seq.
In Solutus Indus. Innovations, LLC v. Sup. Ct. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 316 the California Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal and held that the Federal OSH Act does not preempt unfair competition and consumer protection claims based on workplace safety and health violations. The complaint in Solutus was “based on the same worker health and safety standards placed at issue in the administrative [Cal/OSHA] proceedings.” (Id. at 325.) The Court held that “[t]he district attorney’s use of UCL and [False Advertising Law, B&PC § 17500 et seq. “FAL”] causes of action does not encroach on a field fully occupied by federal law, nor does it stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the federal objective of ensuring a nationwide minimum standard of workplace protection. In addition, the federal act’s structure and language do not reflect a clear purpose of Congress to preempt such claims.” (Id. at 324.)
Cal/OSHA Regulations Will Support Duty for Negligence/Tort Claims
“In general, plaintiffs may use Cal-OSHA provisions to show a duty or standard of care to the same extent as any other regulation or statute, whether the defendant is their employer or a third party.” (Elsner v. Uveges (2004) 34 Cal. 4th 915, 935-936.)
Cal/OSHA, the Privette Doctrine, and Independent Contractors (Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 689)
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 of a subcontractor. (Madden v. Summit View, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal. App. 4th 1267 (referring to Lab. Code, § 6304.5).)
In Toland v. Sunland Housing Group (1998) 18 Cal. 4th 253, the Privette rule was extended to recognize that the hirer “has no obligation to specify the precautions an independent contractor should take for the safety of the contractor’s employees.” (Toland, 18 Cal. 4th at 261).
In SeaBright Ins. Co. v. US Airways, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 590, the Court stated that the previous cases “establish[] that an independent contractor’s hirer presumptively delegates to that contractor its tort law duty to provide a safe workplace for the contractor’s employees.” (Id. at 600.)
The SeaBright court thus agreed with the trial court’s granting of the motion for summary judgment, noting that “plaintiffs ... 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.” (Id.)
Useful Rulings on Health and Safety Regulations – Cal/OSHA
LEONEL CARRASCO TORRES ET AL VS HARRY J OLEN ET AL
TORRES v. OLEN, et al.CASE NO.: BC670915JUDGE: Judge Raul SahagunHEARING: 10/15/19Calendar Matter #4TENTATIVE ORDERDefendant Alston Construction Company, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.Moving Party to give NOTICE.INTRODUCTIONPlaintiffs Leonel Carrasco Torres and Maria Del Carmen Reyes Sanchez sued Defendants Harry J. Olen, Lorraine Olen, Alston Construction, Ampco Contracting, Inc.,...
..ssert a cause of action for negligence and Plaintiff Sanchez asserts a cause of action for loss of consortium based on Plaintiff Torres’s injuries.Now,...
Patrick v. Noise Group, LLV
Defendant/Cross-Complainant Noise Group, LLC’s Motion to Strike language contained in the First Cause of Action for General Negligence (pp. 7-8) and in the Second Cause of Action for Premises Liability (pp. 12 - 14) is DENIED. Negligence Per Se: The plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to support his Negligence Per Se cause of action based upon his allegation that the defendant failed to have such...
..r death; • The occurrence resulting in the injury or death was of a nature that the statute, ordinance or regulation was designed to prevent; and • The victim was among the class of persons for whose protection the statute, ordinance or regulation was adopted. Ev.C. § 669(a) and CACI 418. Cal-OSHA Regulations Will Support Duty: “In general, plaintiffs may use Cal-OSHA provisions to show a duty or...
The Court intends to rule as follows: The Court intends to GRANT the motion for leave to amend. Plaintiff complied with Rule 3.1324. Defendants failed to establish that the proposed cause of action is deficient as a matter of law. Cal OSHA violations may be admitted to establish a standard or duty of care in all negligence, including third party actions. Defendants' arguments that they did not vi...
..a (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939. "If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend; and, where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion." Morgan v Superior Court (1959...
INTRODUCTION There are 3 MSJs before the Court. Defendant City of Long Beach and Intervenor Unite Here Local 11 move for summary judgment as to the sole remaining cause of action for declaratory relief and injunction based on preemption by state law. City and Unite essentially make the same arguments. Specifically, they argue that: (1) Section 5.49.040 of the Long Beach Municipal Code is not an...
..d on the amount of square feet a housekeeper cleans during a shift; and (4) Section 5.49.040 of the Long Beach Municipal Code does not conflict with 8 CCR § 3345. Plaintiff moves for summary judgment as well arguing that Plaintiff has met its burden to show that there is no defense to the action. Plaintiff also moves for summary adjudication of the following issues: Long Beach Municipal Code § 5...
JOSEPH SHEPLER VS BOARD OF TRUSTEE OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE U
For online posting, please note: Unfortunately, the court’s tentative ruling website, which is the source of this version, is not able to show certain formatting that may be contained in the original, such as the court’s use of footnotes/tables, boldface, italics, strikeouts or the underscoring of text or case citations. Footnotes, if any, are added to the text at the end of the document. A hard c...
..ylor Anderson) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (filed 3/6/19) TENTATIVE RULING Defendant’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is GRANTED. The FAC is deemed served on all previously appearing and served parties. A stand-alone original of the FAC shall be filed within 5 calendar days. Defendant’s responsive pleading shall be f...
Nature of Proceedings: Motion: Summary Judgment TENTATIVE RULING: For the reasons set forth herein, the motion of defendants Hollister Business Park, Ltd. and Santa Barbara Capital for summary judgment is denied. Background: This is a motion for summary judgment of an action for wrongful death of an employee who fell through a skylight. (1) Facts Defendant Hollister Business Park, Ltd. (Holl...
..ed defendant Hillpointe Construction, Inc., (Hillpointe) to pressure wash and paint the exterior of the Property. (PSS, undisputed facts 4, 11.) Plaintiff Brandon Rivera is the son and heir of decedent Oscar Rivera (Rivera). (PSS, undisputed fact 1.) Rivera was working at the Property as an employee of Hillpointe on August 30 when he fell through a skylight and suffered fatal injuries. (PSS, undi...
Recent Rulings on Health and Safety Regulations – Cal/OSHA
Plaintiff Washington prioritized patient safety above all, but other employees did not appear similarly concerned with patient safety and health. (Complaint, ¶¶15 – 16.) Plaintiff Washington noticed that patients at the Tully Dialysis Center were improperly scheduled back-to-back and without the allotted 15-30 minute turnover time. (Complaint, ¶17.)
Airways moved for summary judgment based on the Privette doctrine, and, in opposition, SeaBright and the employee presented “a declaration by an accident reconstruction expert, who stated that the lack of safety guards at ‘nip points’ on the conveyor violated Cal-OSHA regulations… and that the safety guards would have prevented Verdon’s injury.” (Id. at p.595.) U.S.
(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.)
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this paragraph, Contractor agrees to perform all Work and furnish tools and equipment that comply with known safety regulations, practices, and precautions, including, but not limited to, regulations under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, as amended, or regulations of any Federal, State or local authorities. (DUMF 52.)
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.
, but not limited to, CAL-OSHA requirements…” (emphasis added) (See Ex.A to Lundgren Decl., Ex.B, p.B-1, I(a)(4)).
SHIMMICK CONTRUCTION CO INC/OBAYASHI CORP A JOINT VENTURE VS. CALIFORNIA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH APPEALS BOARD
., 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.
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 remotely through the Zoom application and live-streamed on the court’s YouTube page.
ANDREWS VS TRI-CITY MEDICAL CENTER ASC
Plaintiff testifies that she filed a complaint with OSHA and spoke with representatives from San Diego County. Id. at ¶¶ 14, 34. Plaintiff also testifies that she threatened to go to the media about her perception that TCHD was violating certain laws. Id. ¶ 31; Andrews Depo. 204:10-207:7. There is a triable issue of fact as to whether TCHD knew about the OSHA complaint. Compare Andrews Decl., ¶ 34 with Beverly Depo., 58:18-22.
Plaintiff also claims that the “nondelegable duty” exception applies because Defendants breached a nondelegable duty to comply with numerous safety regulations, including CCR Title 8 Subchapter 4 Construction Safety Orders Article 3 General § 1509, that affirmatively contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries. But these OSHA regulations are not nondelegable. (See SeaBright Ins. Co. v. US Airways, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 590, 594; Delgadillo v. Television Ctr., Inc., (2018) 20 Cal. App. 5th 1078, 1090-91.)
Provision of Tools: Dwell provided Intervenor with safety glasses, dust masks, resistant work gloves, back safety belt and earplugs for work. Siegle Decl., ¶ 6; Exh. 1; Salvador Depo, 91:15-19. Staffing Network provided gloves to Intervenor. Oppo Exh. 1, Salvador Depo, 91:10-14. In support of its assertion (Fact 18) that Dwell considered Intervenor to be its employee, Dwell offers Ms.
It argues jobsite safety was under Bernard’s control because Bernard’s had a statutory duty under Cal/OSHA regulations to maintain a safe worksite as the general contractor in this construction project. It argues (1) Bernards never explicitly or implicitly assigned its safety obligations to any of its subcontractors.
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.)
[SS #38] Per the National and California State Electrical Codes, OSHA, CFR 29, NFPA 70E and Cal-OSHA, the fenced area containing the high voltage, high power equipment should have been locked and should have had large, bold, colored warning signs, stating, “DANGER---HIGH VOLTAGE---KEEP OUT”. [SS #39] Prior to the incident, there were never any warnings signs placed on the gate or fence of the enclosure for the power feed area.
GOMEZ V. HOLLANDER
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.
and Health Act (“OSHA”) (and all amendments thereto); the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (“COBRA”) (and all amendments thereto); and any and all claims under federal, state, and local laws against discrimination.
PATRICIA J QUIJANO ET AL VS RODDY KHATIB ET AL
In Opposition, Plaintiffs proffer a Police Report indicating that Decedent died of “unknown circumstances”, an OSHA Report indicating that Decedent was found lying in a man-made ditch, and the Deposition testimony of Decedent’s wife indicating that Decedent told her that he smelled a strong smell of gas and was feeling sleepy before he died. (Abrahamian Decl., Exs. 2, 4, and 10.) Plaintiffs have provided no medical expert testimony to rebut Dr.
KARLA , INDIVIDUALLY & AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM OF OSCAR JOVANI MIRANDA AND VALERIA A. MIRANDA MIRANDA VS 7 STAR LOGISTICS, INC
What is “it” and what portion of Cal-OSHA regulations were violated?) Plaintiffs allege “unlicensed, uncertified, and untrained” individuals were allowed to operate forklifts.
NORM WILSON & SONS, INC. VS CALIFORNIA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH APPEALS BOARD, ET AL.
Authority of Respondent Board and Real Party-in-Interest Division The Division has primary responsibility for administering and enforcing the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973 (“Act”), §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.
Please see the Consolidate Tentative ruling posted under North Delta Water Agency's Motion for Attorney's Fees...
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, California Water Impact Network, AquAlliance, Friends of the River, Sierra Club California, Restore the Delta, Planning and Conservation League, Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Save Our Sandhill Cranes, Center for Food Safety - petitioners in Sacramento Superior Court No. 34-2017-80002674 and answering parties in Sacramento Superior Court No. 34-2017-00215965.
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.
Airways moved for summary judgment based on the Privette doctrine, and, in opposition, SeaBright and the employee presented “a declaration by an accident reconstruction expert, who stated that the lack of safety guards at ‘nip points’ on the conveyor violated Cal- OSHA regulations… and that the safety guards would have prevented Verdon’s injury.” (Id. at p.595.) U.S.