Afoa v. Port of Seattle
296 P.3d 800
Wash.2013Background
- Afoa was injured at Sea-Tac Airport while operating a tug/pushback and was not Port of Seattle’s employee.
- Afoa worked for EAGLE, which contracts with airlines to provide ground services; EAGLE is licensed by the Port to operate on the premises.
- Port does not employ EAGLE or pay its employees, but EAGLE must obtain a Port license to work on-site.
- Afoa alleged the Port controlled the Airfield Area, the EAGLE license terms, and Port conduct as to EAGLE, creating control over his work.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the Port; the Court of Appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court granted review to determine summary judgment viability and workplace-safety duties.
- The Supreme Court held that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on all three claims: premises liability as a business invitee, WISHA-specific duties, and common-law safe-workplace duties, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Premises liability status and duty | Afoa is a business invitee due to Port’s control over the site | Afoa is not an invitee given licensee status | Triable issues; Afoa is a business invitee and duty arises |
| WISHA specific duty applicability | Port retains control and thus owes WISHA duties to all workers on-site | WISHA duties do not extend to non-employers absent retained-control over performance | Genuine issues of material fact; Port may have a WISHA duty |
| Common-law safe-workplace duty for retained control | Port retained control over work and could be liable for unsafe common areas | Port cannot be liable as licensor; no employer-employee relationship | Genuine issues of material fact; Port may have a common-law duty to maintain safe areas |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelley v. Howard S. Wright Constr. Co., 90 Wn.2d 323 (Wash. 1978) (retained-control theory to impose safe-workplace duty on jobsite owner/contractor)
- Kamla v. Space Needle Corp., 147 Wn.2d 114 (Wash. 2002) (retained-control exception; liability depends on control over manner of work (not label))
- Goucher v. J.R. Simplot Co., 104 Wn.2d 662 (Wash. 1985) (WISHA specific-duty extends beyond direct employees to those harmed by violations)
- Stute v. P.B.M.C., Inc., 114 Wn.2d 454 (Wash. 1990) (general contractor’s nondelegable duty to comply with WISHA at jobsite)
- Larson v. American Bridge Co. of New York, 40 Wash. 224 (Wash. 1905) (illustrates no-liability rule for independent contractor injuries absent retained control)
- Teal v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 728 F.2d 799 (6th Cir. 1984) (federal parallel on multi-employer workplace duties)