Summary
The Washington Supreme Court considered whether a jobsite owner owed an injured employee of an independent contractor duties under the retained-control exception, the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act, and landowner-invitee principles. The court held that Space Needle did not retain sufficient control over the contractor’s work to incur common-law retained-control liability or a WISHA duty. It also held that the elevator hazard was open and obvious and that Space Needle was entitled to summary judgment on the landowner-invitee claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Space Needle retained sufficient control over the manner in which Pyro performed its work to owe Kamla a common-law duty of care under the retained-control exception.
- Whether a jobsite owner that did not retain control over the manner of an independent contractor's work owes the contractor's employee a nondelegable duty under WISHA, chapter 49.17 RCW.
- Whether Space Needle owed Kamla a landowner's duty to anticipate harm from an open and obvious danger under the Restatement (Second) of Torts sections 343 and 343A.
Holdings
- The retained-control inquiry asks whether the employer retained the right to direct the manner in which the independent contractor's work was performed, not merely whether the employer actually exercised control. Space Needle retained no such right and therefore owed Kamla no common-law duty of care under the retained-control exception.
- A jobsite owner is not per se subject to the general contractor's nondelegable duty under RCW 49.17.060 to ensure WISHA compliance. A jobsite owner that does not retain control over the manner in which an independent contractor performs its work owes no WISHA duty for the manner of that work.
- A landowner may be liable for harm caused by an open and obvious danger if the landowner should anticipate the harm despite the danger's obviousness. However, on this record, no reasonable trier of fact could find that Space Needle should have anticipated Kamla dragging his safety line across the elevator shaft, so summary judgment was proper.
Key quotations
“It is one thing to retain a right to oversee compliance with contract provisions and a different matter to so involve oneself in the performance of the work as to undertake responsibility for the safety of the independent contractor’s employees.” (at 121)
“A landowner is liable for harm caused by an open and obvious danger if the landowner should have anticipated the harm, despite the open and obvious nature of the danger.” (at 126)
Factual background
Space Needle Corporation owned the Space Needle jobsite and hired Pyro-Spectaculars, an independent contractor, to install a New Year's Eve fireworks display. While Jeff Kamla, a Pyro employee, was installing fireworks on the 200-foot level, an elevator snagged his safety line after he dragged it across an open elevator shaft, pulling him through the shaft and injuring him. Pyro had substantial fireworks-display experience, Kamla had worked in the same area during the two preceding years, and Pyro employees had devised a safety system to avoid the elevator openings.
Procedural history
The trial court dismissed Kamla's common-law and statutory claims on summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the retained-control and WISHA claims but reversed on the common-law landowner-invitee claim. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals on the retained-control and statutory claims and reversed it on the landowner-invitee claim, leaving the trial court's judgment affirmed on all claims.