Kamla v. Space Needle Corp.

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court considered whether a jobsite owner was liable for injuries suffered by an independent contractor's employee while installing fireworks at the Space Needle. The court held that the owner retained no sufficient control over the manner of the contractor's work to create a common-law retained-control duty, and that the owner was not subject to the general contractor's nondelegable WISHA duty. The court also held that the elevator hazard was open and obvious and that the owner was entitled to summary judgment on the landowner-invitee claim.

Holdings

1. The retained-control inquiry asks whether the principal retained the right to direct the manner in which the work was performed, not merely whether the principal actually exercised control. Space Needle did not retain such control and therefore owed no common-law duty based on the retained-control exception.
2. A jobsite owner is not per se liable under RCW 49.17.060 merely because it owns the worksite. A jobsite owner that does not retain control over the manner in which an independent contractor performs its work does not owe the statutory duty to ensure WISHA compliance that applies to a general contractor.
3. Although employees of independent contractors are invitees, a landowner is not liable for an open-and-obvious danger when, under the undisputed facts, the landowner could not reasonably have anticipated that the invitee would fail to protect himself. Space Needle was entitled to summary judgment on Kamla's landowner-invitee claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Space Needle retained sufficient control over the manner of Pyro's work to owe Kamla a common-law duty under the retained-control exception to the general rule insulating employers of independent contractors from liability.
2. Whether a jobsite owner that is not a general contractor owes independent-contractor employees a nondelegable statutory duty under WISHA, RCW 49.17.060, without retaining control over the manner of the contractor's work.
3. Whether Space Needle owed Kamla a landowner's common-law duty to an invitee and whether the open-and-obvious nature of the elevator hazard precluded liability as a matter of law.

Disposition

reversed