It is the intent of the Legislature that the 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.
Neither the issuance of, or failure to issue, a citation by the division shall have any application to, nor be considered in, nor be admissible into, evidence in any personal injury or wrongful death action, except as between an employee and his or her own employer. Sections 452 and 669 of the Evidence Code shall apply to this division and to occupational safety and health standards adopted under this division in the same manner as any other statute, ordinance, or regulation. 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. It is the intent of the Legislature that the amendments to this section enacted in the 1999–2000 Regular Session shall not abrogate the holding in Brock v. State of California (1978) 8l Cal.App.3d 752.
Notes of Decisions
Spencer v. G. A. MacDonald Constr. Co., 41 Cal. Comp. Cases 1087 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 4× “However, Labor Code section 6304.5, enacted and operative before plaintiff’s injury, limits the applicability of section 6315.”
Lacount v. Hensel Phelps Constr. Co., 79 Cal. App. 3d 754 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “It is thus irrefutable that the cause of action at issue here arose before the operative date of *775 Labor Code section 6304.5 and that therefore, under the section’s own explicit terms, it is inapplicable to respondent.”
Rodriguez v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 87 Cal. App. 3d 626 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978).
“14 A subsequent amendment to the Labor Code, Labor Code section 6304.5, bars the use of safety orders as evidence in third party personal injury actions.”
Lopez v. Univ. Partners, 62 Cal. Comp. Cases 667 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997).
“5, violations of regulations and safety orders promulgated under CAL/OSHA can have no “application to .”
Widson v. Int'l Harvester Co., 49 Cal. Comp. Cases 811 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984).
“” (Lab. Code, § 6304.5; italics added.) Furthermore, Harvester has failed to demonstrate any prejudicial effect from the trial court’s inadmissibility ruling.”
Vallas v. City of Chula Vista, 56 Cal. App. 3d 382 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976).
“is not applicable except as between an employee and his own employer (Lab. Code, § 6304.5). 2 Ayer v. Boyle, 37 Cal.”
Prince v. Thomas, 25 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (N.D. Cal. 1997).
“California Labor Code Section 6304.5. And the federal OSHA requirements have also been held not to apply in a case between an employer and a person who is not an employee.”
Brock v. State of California, 43 Cal. Comp. Cases 1486 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978).
“is not applicable except as between an employee and his own employer (Lab. Code, § 6304.5).” (Italics added.) The fact that the state has a mandatory duty to inspect and to enforce CAL/OSHA provisions is irrelevant to the issue of whether those provisions can be relied upon in a…”
Rodriguez v. United Airlines, Inc., 5 F. Supp. 3d 1131 (N.D. Cal. 2013).
“The Supreme Court held that under the 1999 amendment to California Labor Code § 6304.5, Cal-OSHA provisions are admis *1142 sible in negligence actions, just as any other statute or regulation, including in third-party actions.”
Lopez v. The Hillshire Brands Co. (Cal. Ct. App. 2019).
“) Moreover, in 1999, Labor Code section 6304.5 was substantially amended and now provides in relevant part: “Sections 452 and 669 of the Evidence Code shall apply to this division and to occupational safety and health standards adopted under this division in the same manner as…”
Seabright Ins. Co. v. Us Airways, Inc., 183 Cal. App. 4th 219 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010).
“[12] Labor Code section 6304.5 provides in part: "It is the intent of the Legislature that the 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…”
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.