 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Morris v. Vaagen Bros. Lumber9/27/2005
l contractors to ensure compliance with all WISHA regulations. Kamla, 147 Wn.2d at 122. The non-delegable duty charged to general contractors is based on the general contractor's 'innate supervisory authority' which controls the workplace. Stute, 114 Wn.2d at 464. In other words, this expansive liability is justified because the supervisory authority of a general contractor is per se control over the workplace. Kamla, 147 Wn.2d at 122 (quoting Stute, 114 Wn.2d at 464). However, this duty does not automatically extend to a contractor who is neither the claimant's employer nor a general contractor exercising the requisite supervisory authority. See Shingledecker v. Roofmaster Prods. Co., 93 Wn. App. 867, 871-72, 971 P.2d 523 (1999).
The primary responsibility to protect the safety of all workers is placed on general contractors because they are in the best position to provide safety equipment and ensure WISHA compliance. Kamla, 147 Wn.2d at 124 (quoting Stute, 114 Wn.2d at 463). By the same token, the general contractor's non-delegable duty of ensuring WISHA compliance on the jobsite has been extended to jobsite owners who retain the right to control the manner in which a contractor and its employees complete their work. See Kamla, 147 Wn.2d at 123. Consequently, a jobsite owner does not have per se liability under RCW 49.17.060, but may have a duty to comply with WISHA regulations if the jobsite owner retains control over the manner in which an independent contractor completes its work. Kamla, 147 Wn.2d at 123-25.
Mr. Morris contends that Global served as the general contractor, or the jobsite owner, and that Global had a non-delegable statutory duty to provide a safe work place and comply with all WISHA regulations. Mr. Morris maintains that Global retained control over the manner in which E.P. Johnson completed its work. Mr. Morris also contends that there is a question of fact as to whether the presence of Mr. Shih and Mr. Hitt at the site demonstrates retained control.
However, the record here does not contain any facts indicating that Global was the general contractor or the jobsite owner, or that Global retained the requisite supervisory authority to trigger the operation of RCW 49.17.060(2).
Under the Contract, E.P. Johnson was solely responsible for the disassembly work and all safety precautions. The E.P. Johnson employees who disassembled the stacker building were directed by another E.P. Johnson employee. There is no evidence that anyone from Global instructed E.P. Johnson employees at any time during the overall disassembly of the sawmill. Mr. Shih's involvement was limited to drawing a layout of the equipment and assigning numbers to assist with reassembly in China. Mr. Hitt inspected the equipment so that spare parts could be obtained. Mr. Morris also argues that Global's sale of safety equipment and tools to E.P. Johnson demonstrates supervisory control. He asserts some of these tools, including some chainsaws and an acetylene torch, were being used when the stacker building collapsed.
The equipment list indicates that E.P. Johnson purchased some safety equipment from Global, including: ear muffs, ear plugs, face shields, side shields, hooded suits, goggles, masks, gloves, and first aid kits. But this fact alone is insufficient to raise a question of material fact as to whether Global retained control over the manner in which E.P. Johnson performed its work under the contract.
Mr. Morris relies on Stute to support his position that the general contractor should bear primary responsibility for safety regulations. In Stute, there was no evidence that P.B.M.C. contractually required the subcontractor to furnish adequate safety equi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|