272 P.3d 889
Wash. Ct. App.2012Background
- UAP Distribution owned the Plymouth site where Hymas was seriously injured during concrete work.
- Narum Concrete performed excavation and concrete work under a contract with UAP using an AIA form; UAP did not hire a general contractor.
- Contract grants Narum control over construction means and methods, with UAP retaining limited rights (inspection, termination, hiring/subcontractor approval) but no direct instruction over Narum’s methods.
- Section 15 of the contract assigns Narum sole responsibility for safety compliance; UAP’s safety roles are limited to notices and general observations for its own benefit.
- The trench where Hymas fell was unguarded and adjacent to the work area; Hymas was operating a concrete pump while following a co-worker near the trench edge.
- At summary judgment, the trial court held UAP owed no duty to Hymas under WISHA and no premises liability duty as a landowner toward a contractor’s employee; the appellate court affirms, concluding no genuine issues of material fact support a duty owed as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UAP owed a WISHA duty to Narum’s employee. | Hymas argues UAP retained control over Narum’s work and violated WISHA. | Kamla controls; jobsite owners aren’t per se liable unless retention of control exists. | No WISHA duty; no retained control sufficient to impose liability. |
| Whether UAP owed a premises liability duty to Hymas as a landowner/invitee. | UAP, as landowner, failed to warn or protect against an obvious hazard. | Invitee duty is limited; contractor’s own negligence and safety are responsibility of Narum; landowner not liable for contractor’s fault. | No premises liability duty; landowner not liable for independent contractor’s negligence under Sections 343/343A. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kamla v. Space Needle Corp., 147 Wash.2d 114 (2002) (establishes control-based WISHA duty analysis for jobsite owners)
- Stute v. P.B.M.C, Inc., 114 Wash.2d 454 (1990) (employer duty to employees; nondelegable safety duties context)
- Weinert v. Bronco Nat'l Co., 58 Wash.App. 692 (1990) (development/ownership context for safety duties vis-à-vis contractors)
- Doss v. ITT Rayonier, Inc., 60 Wash.App. 125 (1991) (owner liability when owner controls work via contract/relationship)
- Epperly v. City of Seattle, 65 Wash.2d 777 (1965) (restatement-influenced framework for duty and control)
- Afoa v. Port of Seattle, 160 Wash.App. 237 (2010) (distinguishes between mere compliance with law and actual retained control)
- Kamla v. Space Needle Corp., 147 Wash.2d 114 (2002) (key restatement-based standard for jobsite owner liability)
- Arnold v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc., 157 Wash.App. 649 (2010) (take-home/asbestos context; Restatement 343A applicability)
- Golding v. United Homes Corp., 6 Wash.App. 707 (1972) (premises liability; invitee duty when owner not controlling contractor)
- Lamborn v. Phillips Pac. Chem. Co., 89 Wash.2d 701 (1978) (owner not liable for independent contractor’s unsafe practices)