In Elsner v. Uveges (2004) 34 Cal.4th 915, plaintiff was an employee of a subcontractor and was injured on the job in a fall from faulty scaffolding built under the worksite general contractor's supervision. (Id. at p. 925.) In the subsequent negligence action, the general contractor sought to exclude "references to Cal-OSHA provisions and their alleged violation" on the grounds section 6304.5 made them "inadmissible for any purpose in an employee's third party action." (Id. at p. 924.) The Supreme Court held under the Labor Code section 6304.5 as amended "henceforth, Cal-OSHA provisions are to be treated like any other statute or regulation and may be admitted to establish a standard or duty of care in all negligence and wrongful death actions, including third party actions." (Id. at p. 928.) "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. The lone exception arises when the state is the defendant based on actions it took or failed to take in its regulatory capacity; in such cases, Cal-OSHA provisions remain inadmissible to show liability based on breach of the statutory duty to inspect worksites and enforce safety rules." (Id. at pp. 935-936.) In Elsner, because the accident occurred prior to the amendment of Labor Code section 6304.5, the Supreme Court ultimately found reversible error due to the lower court's retroactive application of the burden-shifting component of the negligence per se analysis. (Elsner, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 938.)