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 3. Responsibilities and Duties of Employers and Employees [6400 – 6413.5] ( Chapter 3 repealed and added by Stats. 1973, Ch. 993. )

Exact Statute Text

(a) Every employer shall furnish employment and a place of employment that is safe and healthful for the employees therein.

(b) On multiemployer worksites, both construction and nonconstruction, citations may be issued only to the following categories of employers when the division has evidence that an employee was exposed to a hazard in violation of any requirement enforceable by the division:

(1) The employer whose employees were exposed to the hazard (the exposing employer).

(2) The employer who actually created the hazard (the creating employer).

(3) The employer who was responsible, by contract or through actual practice, for safety and health conditions on the worksite, which is the employer who had the authority for ensuring that the hazardous condition is corrected (the controlling employer).

(4) The employer who had the responsibility for actually correcting the hazard (the correcting employer).

The employers listed in paragraphs (2) to (4), inclusive, of this subdivision may be cited regardless of whether their own employees were exposed to the hazard.

(c) It is the intent of the Legislature, in adding subdivision (b) to this section, to codify existing regulations with respect to the responsibility of employers at multiemployer worksites. Subdivision (b) of this section is declaratory of existing law and shall not be construed or interpreted as creating a new law or as modifying or changing an existing law.

(Amended by Stats. 1999, Ch. 615, Sec. 4. Effective January 1, 2000.)

Labor Code § 6400 Summary

California Labor Code § 6400 is a cornerstone of workplace safety law, mandating that every employer in California must provide a safe and healthful environment for their employees. This fundamental duty applies to all employers, regardless of industry or size.

The statute also specifically addresses responsibilities at multiemployer worksites, such as construction sites or large industrial complexes where multiple companies operate. In these scenarios, Cal/OSHA (the Division of Occupational Safety and Health) can issue citations to various employers beyond just the direct employer of an injured worker. These categories include:

1. Exposing Employer: The employer whose own employees were exposed to a hazard.
2. Creating Employer: The employer who actually caused or created the hazardous condition.
3. Controlling Employer: The employer, typically a general contractor or site manager, who has overall responsibility for safety and health conditions by contract or practice and the authority to ensure hazards are corrected.
4. Correcting Employer: The employer tasked with actually fixing the hazardous condition.

Notably, employers categorized as creating, controlling, or correcting can be cited even if their own employees were not exposed to the hazard, emphasizing a broader shared responsibility on multiemployer sites. Subsection (c) clarifies that these multiemployer provisions merely codify existing legal principles, rather than creating new law.

Purpose of Labor Code § 6400

The legislative purpose behind Labor Code § 6400 is to safeguard the well-being of workers across California by establishing a clear, overarching duty for employers to maintain a safe and healthful workplace. This statute aims to prevent occupational injuries, illnesses, and fatalities by placing the primary responsibility for safety squarely on employers. By mandating a safe environment, the law encourages proactive measures, such as providing proper equipment, implementing safety protocols, and ensuring adequate training, thereby reducing workplace hazards.

Furthermore, the specific provisions for multiemployer worksites, particularly common in industries like construction, serve to clarify and reinforce shared responsibilities. Before these provisions were explicitly added, there was often confusion or finger-pointing regarding accountability when an employee of one contractor was injured due to conditions created by another. By codifying the roles of exposing, creating, controlling, and correcting employers, the statute aims to ensure comprehensive oversight of safety, prevent gaps in responsibility, and promote a collaborative approach to hazard mitigation on complex job sites, ultimately enhancing worker protection.

Real-World Example of Labor Code § 6400

Imagine a large commercial construction project where “BuildRight General Contractors” is the controlling employer, overseeing various subcontractors. “SteelStrong Inc.” is responsible for erecting steel beams, and “CleanSweep Services” is contracted to regularly remove debris.

One day, a “SteelStrong Inc.” employee, Sarah, is walking across a section of the worksite. She trips over a pile of rebar that was left unsecured in a walkway by “ConcreteCo,” another subcontractor, the previous afternoon. Sarah falls and suffers a serious leg injury.

In this scenario, Labor Code § 6400 would come into play:

• Exposing Employer: SteelStrong Inc. (Sarah’s direct employer) could be cited because their employee was exposed to the hazard. They might have a duty to identify and mitigate hazards their employees face.
• Creating Employer: ConcreteCo would be the creating employer because their employees left the rebar pile, directly causing the hazard. They could be cited even if none of their own employees were injured.
• Controlling Employer: BuildRight General Contractors, as the general contractor, would be the controlling employer. They are responsible for overall site safety, likely by contract, and had the authority to ensure the walkway was kept clear. They could be cited for failing to identify and correct the hazard created by ConcreteCo, or for failing to enforce safety rules.
• Correcting Employer: If CleanSweep Services had a specific contract to clear all walkways of debris daily, but failed to do so before the incident, they might be considered the correcting employer. They had the responsibility to correct the hazard, regardless of who created it.

This example illustrates how Labor Code § 6400 ensures multiple parties can be held accountable for workplace safety on a complex site, ensuring that the duty to provide a safe workplace is shared and enforced effectively.

Related Statutes

Several other California Labor Code sections and general legal principles are closely related to Labor Code § 6400:

• Labor Code § 6401 – Safe and Healthful Equipment and Practices: This section expands on the general duty, specifying that employers must furnish and use safety devices and safeguards, and adopt methods and processes reasonably adequate to render employment and places of employment safe and healthful.
• Labor Code § 6402 – No Employee to Occupy Unsafe Place: This section prohibits employers from permitting employees to work in any place that is not safe and healthful.
• Labor Code § 6403 – No Unsafe Place or Method of Employment: This statute prohibits employers from requiring or permitting any employee to be in any unsafe place or to use any unsafe equipment, or to practice any unsafe method or process.
• Labor Code § 6404 – No Employee to Occupy Unsafe Place (Reprisal Protection): While having a similar title, this section also implies that employees have a right not to be in unsafe places, and other sections protect them from reprisal if they report unsafe conditions.
• Labor Code § 3600 et seq. – Workers’ Compensation: While LC § 6400 establishes the duty, LC § 3600 defines the conditions under which an employee is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits for an injury arising out of and in the course of employment. Workers’ compensation is typically the exclusive remedy for employees against their direct employer for workplace injuries.
• 8 CCR (California Code of Regulations) – Cal/OSHA Regulations: These regulations, enforced by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), provide specific, detailed safety standards and rules that implement the general duties outlined in Labor Code § 6400 and related sections. Violations of these specific regulations often serve as evidence of a breach of the general duty to provide a safe workplace.
• Civil Code § 1714 – Liability for Negligent and Willful Acts: This general negligence statute can be relevant in third-party personal injury claims arising from workplace accidents (e.g., an employee suing a non-employer entity like a general contractor, property owner, or another subcontractor) where a breach of the duty to provide a safe workplace (as defined by LC § 6400) contributed to the injury.

Case Law Interpreting Labor Code § 6400

Case law frequently references Labor Code § 6400 in the context of defining employer duties, especially on multiemployer worksites, and in establishing negligence.

• _Tverberg v. Fillner Constr., Inc._, 202 Cal. App. 4th 1439 (2012): This case extensively discusses the duty of a general contractor (often the “controlling employer”) to provide a safe workplace for the employees of its subcontractors. The court affirmed that a general contractor has a duty to provide a safe place to work for all employees on the job site, including those of subcontractors, if it has the right to control the work or the premises. This case provides important context for understanding the “controlling employer” aspect of LC § 6400(b)(3).

* View on Google Scholar: [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12952864692765275822](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12952864692765275822)

• _Arya Group, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Bd._, 182 Cal. App. 4th 487 (2010): This case provides a detailed analysis of the multiemployer worksite doctrine, explicitly referencing Labor Code § 6400(b) and its legislative intent to codify existing regulations. It clarifies how Cal/OSHA citations can be issued to various employers (exposing, creating, controlling, correcting) on a multiemployer site, regardless of direct employment. The court upheld the citation of a general contractor as a “controlling employer” for safety violations.

* View on Google Scholar: [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16766444855799732734](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16766444855799732734)

• _Tzolov v. Best Buy Stores, L.P._, 2011 WL 2200371 (Cal. Ct. App. June 6, 2011) (unpublished): While an unpublished opinion, this case (which refers to LC 6400 in its discussion) illustrates the application of the duty in premises liability where an employer’s duty to provide a safe workplace intertwines with general premises liability principles. It demonstrates that the duty under LC 6400 is foundational when assessing negligence for workplace injuries.

* View on Google Scholar: [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13926524317924446450](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13926524317924446450)

Why Labor Code § 6400 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation

Labor Code § 6400 is a critical statute in California personal injury litigation, particularly for workplace accidents. While workers’ compensation generally serves as the exclusive remedy for an injured employee against their direct employer, this statute plays a vital role in several key areas:

1. Establishing a Duty of Care: For plaintiffs, LC § 6400 provides a foundational legal basis to demonstrate that an employer (or another responsible entity on a multiemployer site) owed a duty to ensure a safe workplace. A breach of this duty, especially when coupled with a violation of specific Cal/OSHA regulations (which stem from this general duty), can be powerful evidence of negligence.
2. Third-Party Claims: This is where LC § 6400 shines in personal injury cases. If a worker is injured due to the negligence of someone other than their direct employer—such as a general contractor, a property owner, or another subcontractor on a multiemployer site—the injured worker may be able to pursue a civil personal injury lawsuit against that third party. LC § 6400, particularly its multiemployer worksite provisions, helps define the duties and responsibilities of these third parties, allowing attorneys to identify and hold accountable the “creating,” “controlling,” or “correcting” employers whose negligence contributed to the injury.
3. Negligence Per Se: A violation of Labor Code § 6400, or more commonly, a specific Cal/OSHA regulation derived from it, can sometimes establish “negligence per se” in a personal injury claim. This means that if a defendant violated a safety statute or regulation designed to protect people like the plaintiff, and that violation caused the type of injury the statute was intended to prevent, the defendant’s negligence is presumed.
4. Serious and Willful Misconduct (Workers’ Compensation): In specific, limited circumstances, if an employer’s violation of LC § 6400 or related safety statutes amounts to “serious and willful misconduct,” an injured employee may be entitled to an increase in their workers’ compensation benefits. This can be a significant avenue for recovery when an employer has egregiously disregarded safety.
5. Defense Strategies: For defense attorneys, LC § 6400 guides arguments that their client either met their duty of care, or that another party (like a different employer on a multiemployer site) was solely or primarily responsible for the hazard that caused the injury. Understanding the nuances of “exposing,” “creating,” “controlling,” and “correcting” employers is crucial for allocating fault and liability.

In essence, Labor Code § 6400 is not just a regulatory statute; it is a powerful tool in personal injury litigation that helps define the standard of care in workplaces, particularly complex ones, and provides a framework for holding negligent parties accountable for worker injuries beyond the scope of traditional workers’ compensation.