Code Details

Labor Code – LAB
DIVISION 5. SAFETY IN EMPLOYMENT [6300 – 9254] ( Division 5 enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 90. )
PART 1. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH [6300 – 6725] ( Heading of Part 1 amended by Stats. 1973, Ch. 993. )

CHAPTER 1. Jurisdiction and Duties [6300 – 6332] ( Heading of Chapter 1 amended by Stats. 1973, Ch. 993. )

Exact Statute Text

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.

(Amended by Stats. 1999, Ch. 615, Sec. 2. Effective January 1, 2000.)

Labor Code § 6304.5 Summary

Labor Code § 6304.5 clarifies how California’s occupational safety and health (Cal/OSHA) standards and citations can be used in civil lawsuits for personal injury or wrongful death. Essentially, the statute states that Cal/OSHA regulations are primarily intended for enforcing employee safety against employers.

Here’s a breakdown of its key provisions:

1. Limited Admissibility of Citations: Generally, whether Cal/OSHA issued a citation or failed to issue one cannot be used as evidence in a personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit.
2. Exception for Employer-Employee Cases: This restriction does *not* apply if the lawsuit is between an employee and their *own* employer. In such specific cases, Cal/OSHA citations might be admissible.
3. Application of Evidence Code: Importantly, the statute clarifies that Cal/OSHA safety standards themselves (the rules, not the citations) can be treated like any other statute or regulation under California Evidence Code §§ 452 (judicial notice) and 669 (presumption of negligence). This means that a court can take official notice of these safety rules, and a violation of a Cal/OSHA standard could potentially create a legal presumption of negligence, even if the citation itself is inadmissible.
4. No Expert Testimony from Cal/OSHA Employees: Employees of the Cal/OSHA division are prohibited from testifying as expert witnesses or about the application of safety standards in these civil cases.
5. Preservation of *Brock* Ruling: The statute explicitly states that its 1999 amendment does not overturn the holding of *Brock v. State of California*, a case that limited the use of Cal/OSHA standards in certain contexts.

In simple terms, while Cal/OSHA is crucial for workplace safety enforcement, its findings (citations) are mostly kept out of non-employer civil lawsuits, but the safety rules themselves can still be used to establish negligence under specific evidence rules.

Purpose of Labor Code § 6304.5

The legislative purpose behind Labor Code § 6304.5 is to strike a delicate balance between promoting workplace safety through Cal/OSHA regulations and limiting the collateral civil liability that might arise from its enforcement actions.

Prior to the enactment and subsequent amendments of this statute, there was a risk that Cal/OSHA investigations and citations could be used too broadly in civil lawsuits, particularly against parties who were not the direct employer of the injured worker (e.g., property owners, general contractors, equipment manufacturers). The Legislature’s intent was to prevent a “chilling effect” where employers might hesitate to report accidents or cooperate fully with investigations if every Cal/OSHA finding could immediately be used against them or others in costly civil litigation.

By making Cal/OSHA citations generally inadmissible in most personal injury and wrongful death actions (except those directly between an employee and their *own* employer), the statute encourages employers to focus on compliance and safety without fear of automatic civil liability from the citation itself. It distinguishes between the administrative/regulatory enforcement function of Cal/OSHA and the standards for proving negligence in a civil court.

However, the statute is not intended to completely insulate all parties from the duty to adhere to safety standards. By explicitly allowing the application of Evidence Code §§ 452 (judicial notice) and 669 (presumption of negligence) to Cal/OSHA *standards* (the rules themselves, distinct from citations), the Legislature ensures that these foundational safety principles can still inform a jury’s determination of negligence. This means that while a plaintiff might not be able to introduce a Cal/OSHA citation against a third party, they can still argue that the third party violated a specific Cal/OSHA safety regulation, and that violation led to a presumption of negligence, provided other conditions for Evidence Code § 669 are met.

In essence, Labor Code § 6304.5 aims to keep the focus of Cal/OSHA on its primary mission—employee safety enforcement—while providing a pathway for its underlying safety standards to be considered in civil cases when relevant to establishing a duty of care and breach of that duty.

Real-World Example of Labor Code § 6304.5

Imagine a construction site where an electrician, John, employed by “Bright Sparks Inc.,” is injured when he falls from an unstable scaffold. The scaffold was set up by “Solid Build Contractors,” the general contractor on the site, and Bright Sparks Inc. (John’s direct employer) had leased it from them.

1. Cal/OSHA Investigation: Cal/OSHA investigates the incident and issues a citation to Solid Build Contractors for violating specific safety standards related to scaffold stability.
2. John’s Personal Injury Lawsuit: John files a personal injury lawsuit seeking damages for his injuries. He sues Solid Build Contractors for negligence in providing an unsafe scaffold.
3. Application of Labor Code § 6304.5:
* Against Solid Build Contractors (not John’s direct employer): John’s attorney wants to introduce the Cal/OSHA citation issued to Solid Build Contractors as evidence that they were negligent. However, under Labor Code § 6304.5, the citation itself (the fact that Cal/OSHA *issued* a citation) is generally *inadmissible* against Solid Build Contractors because they are not John’s *direct employer*.
* Using Cal/OSHA Standards: John’s attorney can still argue that Solid Build Contractors were negligent by violating specific Cal/OSHA safety *standards* regarding scaffold construction and stability. Even without introducing the citation, the attorney can present evidence about how the scaffold was built and compare it to the Cal/OSHA regulations. If the jury finds that Solid Build Contractors violated a specific Cal/OSHA safety regulation that was intended to prevent the type of injury John suffered, and that violation caused his injury, Evidence Code § 669 (Presumption of Negligence) could be invoked. This would create a legal presumption that Solid Build Contractors were negligent, shifting the burden to them to prove they acted with due care.
* Against Bright Sparks Inc. (John’s direct employer, if applicable): If John had a valid claim against his own employer, Bright Sparks Inc. (e.g., under a “dual capacity” exception to workers’ compensation exclusivity, which is rare, or a specific statutory exception for employer misconduct), the Cal/OSHA citation issued to Bright Sparks Inc. *might* be admissible as evidence against them, because the statute carves out an exception for actions “between an employee and his or her own employer.”
* Cal/OSHA Testimony: If a Cal/OSHA investigator was called to testify, they could describe factual observations made during their investigation (e.g., the scaffold was missing guardrails). However, under Labor Code § 6304.5, they could *not* offer expert opinions on whether the scaffold was “safe” or “unsafe” in a legal sense, nor could they interpret the application of the safety standards.

This example illustrates how the statute restricts the use of Cal/OSHA citations in many third-party personal injury cases, while still allowing the underlying safety standards to be a powerful tool for proving negligence.

Related Statutes

Labor Code § 6304.5 doesn’t operate in a vacuum. Its interpretation and application are deeply intertwined with other California statutes, particularly those governing evidence and occupational safety:

• Evidence Code § 452 – Matters Permitted to be Judicially Noticed: This section allows courts to take judicial notice of certain facts without formal proof, including “regulations and rules of the legislative and executive departments of the United States and of any public entity in the United States.” Labor Code § 6304.5 explicitly states that Cal/OSHA standards apply in the same manner as any other statute, ordinance, or regulation under Evidence Code § 452, meaning a court can officially recognize and accept these safety standards without requiring extensive foundational testimony.
• Evidence Code § 669 – Presumption of Negligence; Custom or Practice: This is a crucial companion statute. Evidence Code § 6304.5 allows Cal/OSHA standards to be used under Evidence Code § 669. Under Evidence Code § 669, if a person violates a statute, ordinance, or regulation of a public entity (like a Cal/OSHA standard), the violation creates a presumption of negligence, provided:

1. The injury resulted from an occurrence that the statute was designed to prevent.
2. The person suffering the injury was one of the class of persons for whose protection the statute was adopted.
This presumption can be overcome, but it shifts the burden of proof. This is how Cal/OSHA *standards* (as opposed to citations) become powerful tools in negligence cases.

• Labor Code § 6304 – “Employer” Definition: This section defines “employer” for the purposes of Division 5 of the Labor Code, which includes Cal/OSHA regulations. This definition is critical for understanding the exception in Labor Code § 6304.5 regarding actions “between an employee and his or her own employer.”
• Labor Code § 6302 – “Division” Definition: This section defines “division” as the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA). This helps clarify which entity’s citations and employees are being referred to in Labor Code § 6304.5.
• Labor Code § 6400 – Employer’s Duty to Provide Safe Workplace: This fundamental statute mandates that “Every employer shall furnish employment and a place of employment that is safe and healthful for the employees therein.” Cal/OSHA standards are the specific rules and regulations that give effect to this general duty. Labor Code § 6304.5 helps define how the violation of these specific rules can be used in civil actions stemming from a breach of this overarching duty.
• California Workers’ Compensation Law (Labor Code §§ 3200 et seq.): This body of law establishes the exclusive remedy for most workplace injuries between an employee and their employer. Labor Code § 6304.5 clarifies how Cal/OSHA can be used in the limited circumstances where a civil personal injury action *is* permissible against an employer (e.g., “grave injury” exceptions, intentional torts by the employer, or dual capacity doctrines), or, more commonly, against third parties who are not the direct employer.

Case Law Interpreting Labor Code § 6304.5

Several key California appellate and Supreme Court cases have interpreted Labor Code § 6304.5, particularly focusing on the distinction between the admissibility of Cal/OSHA citations and the underlying safety standards, and the impact of the 1999 amendment.

• Brock v. State of California (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 752: [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17628882414732159020](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17628882414732159020)

This case, explicitly referenced in the statute, held that Cal/OSHA provisions were not intended to expand the duties of a general contractor to a subcontractor’s employees beyond those already recognized by common law. It essentially limited the ability of third parties to use Cal/OSHA standards to establish negligence against a general contractor for injuries to a subcontractor’s employees. The Legislature, by including the reference to *Brock* in the 1999 amendment, signaled its intent that the amendment should not abrogate this principle, reinforcing that Cal/OSHA standards generally define the duty owed by an employer to its own employees, not necessarily to employees of other entities.

• Salin v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1998) 136 Cal.App.4th 1176: [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1092671041926600079](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1092671041926600079)

Though decided just before the 1999 amendment to § 6304.5, *Salin* illustrated the prior judicial uncertainty regarding the use of Cal/OSHA regulations in third-party lawsuits. The court in *Salin* considered whether Cal/OSHA regulations could be used to establish a duty of care owed by a property owner to an independent contractor’s employee. It underscored the debate that ultimately led to the legislative clarification in the 1999 amendment.

• Elsner v. Uveges (2004) 34 Cal.4th 915: [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14115162386127670989](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14115162386127670989)

This landmark California Supreme Court case is the most significant interpretation of the post-1999 version of Labor Code § 6304.5. The court affirmed that while Cal/OSHA *citations* are generally inadmissible in civil actions against non-employers, the underlying Cal/OSHA *regulations* (safety standards) *can* be used to establish a presumption of negligence under Evidence Code § 669. *Elsner* clarified that the 1999 amendment to Labor Code § 6304.5 was intended to resolve the conflict in appellate decisions by allowing the use of Cal/OSHA standards as a basis for the presumption of negligence against *all* defendants (not just employers) in personal injury and wrongful death actions, so long as the conditions of Evidence Code § 669 are met. The court explicitly distinguished between the *citation* (an administrative finding) and the *regulation* (a safety rule). This ruling is critical for plaintiffs seeking to establish negligence against third parties in workplace injury cases.

Why Labor Code § 6304.5 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation

Labor Code § 6304.5 is a foundational statute for California personal injury attorneys and their clients, particularly in cases involving workplace accidents or injuries on commercial properties. Its impact is significant for both plaintiff and defense strategies:

• For Injured Workers (Plaintiffs):

* Limits on Direct Evidence: If you’re injured at work and suing a party other than your direct employer (e.g., a general contractor, property owner, or equipment manufacturer), you generally *cannot* simply introduce a Cal/OSHA citation issued to that third party as direct proof of their negligence. This means your attorney must develop other evidence.
* Power of the Standards: However, the statute *does not* prevent your attorney from using the underlying Cal/OSHA safety *standards* to argue negligence. Thanks to Evidence Code § 669, violating a specific Cal/OSHA regulation can create a presumption that the defendant was negligent. This is a powerful tool, as it shifts the burden to the defendant to prove they acted with reasonable care despite violating the rule.
* Focus on the Rules, Not the Citation: Your legal team needs to focus on proving the defendant violated a specific safety rule and that this violation caused your injury, rather than relying on the administrative finding (the citation) itself.
* Cases Against Your Own Employer: In the rare instances where you can sue your direct employer for a workplace injury (e.g., specific exceptions to workers’ compensation exclusivity), Cal/OSHA citations *might* be admissible. This is a highly complex area, and understanding this distinction is crucial.

• For Defendants (Especially Third Parties):

* Protection Against “Automatic” Liability: If you’re a general contractor, property owner, or another third party being sued after a workplace injury, Labor Code § 6304.5 offers a significant defense. It prevents plaintiffs from using a Cal/OSHA citation issued to you as a direct “smoking gun” to prove negligence.
* Challenging the Presumption: While a plaintiff can use Cal/OSHA standards to create a presumption of negligence under Evidence Code § 669, defendants have the opportunity to rebut this presumption by demonstrating that they acted with due care, despite any alleged violation.
* Limits on Expert Testimony: The prohibition against Cal/OSHA employees testifying as experts limits the plaintiff’s ability to easily secure official interpretations of standards, forcing them to rely on independent safety experts.

• For Legal Professionals:

* Evidence Admissibility: The statute is critical for understanding what evidence is admissible and inadmissible in workplace injury lawsuits. It shapes discovery strategies, motion practice (e.g., motions in limine to exclude citations), and trial presentation.
* Strategic Pleading: Attorneys must carefully plead their cases, focusing on the violation of specific Cal/OSHA standards rather than simply alleging a Cal/OSHA citation.
* Navigating Complexity: The interplay between Labor Code § 6304.5, Evidence Code §§ 452 and 669, and the *Brock* and *Elsner* case law requires sophisticated legal analysis to effectively represent clients on either side of a workplace injury claim.

In essence, Labor Code § 6304.5 prevents the administrative findings of Cal/OSHA from automatically determining civil liability in most personal injury cases. Instead, it directs courts and juries to consider the underlying safety *standards* as part of a comprehensive negligence analysis, ensuring fairness while upholding the intent to promote workplace safety.