California Codes

Cal. Labor Code § 5705 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The burden of proof rests upon the party or lien claimant holding the affirmative of the issue. The following are affirmative defenses, and the burden of proof rests upon the employer to establish them:

(a)That an injured person claiming to be an employee was an independent contractor or otherwise excluded from the protection of this division where there is proof that the injured person was at the time of his or her injury actually performing service for the alleged employer.

(b)Intoxication of an employee causing his or her injury.

(c)Willful misconduct of an employee causing his or her injury.

(d)Aggravation of disability by unreasonable conduct of the employee.

(e)Prejudice to the employer by failure of the employee to give notice, as required by Sections 5400 and 5401.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 21 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1945–2022 · leading case: Germann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 46 Cal. Comp. Cases 1062 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Germann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 46 Cal. Comp. Cases 1062 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “*781 “Labor Code Section 5705 places the burden of proof on [Germann] to establish that applicant was actually an independent contractor rath- *782 “This is a case in which we can give little weight to the question of right of control.”

Colonial Ins. v. Indus. Accident Comm'n, 164 P.2d 490 (Cal. 1945). · cites it 2× “) By making the statute of limitation an affirmative defense the burden of proving that the action is barred rests upon the defendant.”

Perguica v. Indus. Accident Comm'n, 179 P.2d 812 (Cal. 1947). “) Here any reasonable view of the evidence on the issue of Walker’s status compels the conclusion that petitioners met their burden of proving that he was an independent contractor (Lab. Code, § 5705(a)), and that the commission’s award based on a contrary finding is not…”

Pac. Freight Lines v. Indus. Accident Comm'n, 157 P.2d 634 (Cal. 1945). · cites it 2× “(Lab. Code, § 5705.) Thus, we have a case of the employer coming forward with evidence to establish a defense, the applicants having made out their case.”

Smith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 46 Cal. Comp. Cases 1053 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981). “Code, § 3600), 1 Labor Code section 5705 expressly makes intoxication an affirmative defense and places the burden of proof upon the employer: “The burden of proof rests upon the party holding the affirmative of the issue.”

Douglas Aircraft, Inc. v. Indus. Accident Comm'n, 306 P.2d 425 (Cal. 1957). “For example: Second Finding Petitioners contend that the employee was injured while engaged in an act not within his assigned duties.”

Martin v. Ford Alexander Corp., 160 F. Supp. 670 (S.D. Cal. 1958). “California Labor Code, § 5705(a); Riskin v.”

Johnson v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd., 39 Cal. Comp. Cases 565 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974). “Code, § 3357 [presumption of employment]; Lab. Code, § 5705 [independent contractorship is an affirmative defense].”

Am. Mut. Liab. Ins. v. Indus. Accident Commision, 178 P.2d 40 (Cal. Ct. App. 1947). “As a defense to the claim of the dependents, the petitioner set up the intoxication of Wilson as the cause of his injury (Lab.”

Jones v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd., 36 Cal. Comp. Cases 563 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971). “So much for performing services “for another,” bringing into play the statutory presumption.”

Cadotte v. Indus. Accident Comm'n, 194 P.2d 563 (Cal. Ct. App. 1948). “However, assuming that this incident took place, we cannot say, under all the circumstances of this case, that the referee abused the discretion vested in him.”

Guzman v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 49 Cal. Comp. Cases 544 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984). “Preliminarily, we note that Union, to meet its burden of proving independent contractor status (Lab. Code, § 5705) in order to overcome the presumption of employee status (Lab.”

Show all 21 citing cases →

— Cal. Labor Code § 5705(a) — 3 cases

Martin v. Ford Alexander Corp., 160 F. Supp. 670 (S.D. Cal. 1958). “California Labor Code, § 5705(a); Riskin v.”

Goldberg v. Pac. Employers Ins., 161 P.2d 272 (Cal. Ct. App. 1945).

— Cal. Labor Code § 5705(b) — 1 case

Pac. Freight Lines v. Indus. Accident Comm'n, 157 P.2d 634 (Cal. 1945). “(Lab. Code, § 5705.) Thus, we have a case of the employer coming forward with evidence to establish a defense, the applicants having made out their case.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.