Yeatts v. Polygon Northwest Co., 341 P.3d 864

Polygon was general contractor on a townhouse project; Wood Mechanix (subcontractor) contracted to perform framing and to provide a site-specific safety/ fall-protection plan (Wood Mechanix chose guardrails).
Contract required Wood Mechanix to be "responsible for providing a safe work site" and to submit its safety plan to Polygon; Polygon retained rights to request safety measures and to oversee general site safety.
Polygon superintendents did daily site walks, held weekly subcontractor meetings, and would point out obvious safety violations to subcontractors but did not design or install subcontractors’ safety systems.
Plaintiff (Wood Mechanix employee) fell 19 feet from a third-floor guardrail that gave way while he was framing; no Polygon employees were on that floor when he fell.
Plaintiff sued Polygon under Oregon’s Employer Liability Law (ELL), alleging Polygon was an "indirect employer" with responsibility for the guardrail, and also sued in common-law negligence for failing to ensure adequate guardrails/warn of the hazard.
Trial court granted summary judgment for Polygon; on appeal the court affirmed, holding plaintiff did not raise triable issues that Polygon exercised the required control for ELL or owed a duty in negligence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Polygon is liable under the ELL as an "indirect employer" (control over risk-producing activity)	Yeatts: evidence (contract terms, Polygon safety plan, site supervision, employees' testimony, Polygon review of subcontractor plan, instruction to work that day) shows common enterprise/ retained right to control/ actual control over fall-protection	Polygon: primary safety responsibility lay with Wood Mechanix; Polygon only oversaw general safety, could request measures, and would point out obvious hazards — no authority or practice of directing how guardrails were built or maintained	Held: Affirmed for Polygon — plaintiff failed to show common enterprise, retained right to control, or actual control over the framing/guardrail work necessary to trigger ELL liability
Whether Polygon owed a duty in common-law negligence (special-expertise rule)	Yeatts: Polygon’s fall-protection plan and requirement that subcontractor submit plan show Polygon had expertise/was not merely relying on Wood Mechanix	Polygon: under Yowell/George it could rely on Wood Mechanix’s specialized expertise in framing and fall protection; Polygon had no special knowledge of guardrail construction and did not control or exercise control over that work	Held: Polygon owed no duty — it could rely on subcontractor’s expertise; summary judgment affirmed

Wilson v. P.G.E. Co., 252 Or 385 (establishes ELL purpose and limits on liability from retained contractual rights to control safety)
Woodbury v. CH2M Hill, Inc., 335 Or 154 (defines "work involving a risk or danger" and explains tests for ELL control)
Jones v. General Motors Corp., 325 Or 404 (summary-judgment review standard cited)
Spain v. Jones, 257 Or App 777 (work at height includes related tasks; scope of risk-producing activity)
Moe v. Eugene Zurbrugg Constr. Co., 202 Or App 577 (scope of dangerous work — working above trenches)
Brown v. Boise-Cascade Corp., 150 Or App 391 (common-enterprise and retained-control distinctions)
Sacher v. Bohemia, Inc., 302 Or 477 (common-enterprise requires control over the instrumentality that caused injury)
German v. Murphy, 146 Or App 349 (sufficient evidence of common enterprise where owner directed specific safety measures)
Yowell v. Gen. Tire & Rubber, 260 Or 319 (special-expertise rule: hiring party may rely on contractor’s expertise and owes no duty to discover unknown dangerous conditions)
George v. Myers, 169 Or App 472 (applies Yowell to obvious risks intrinsic to contractor’s specialized task)
Cortez v. Nacco Materials Handling Group, 248 Or App 435 (articulates common-enterprise elements)
Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, 303 Or 1 (duty analysis framework)