 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Morris v. Vaagen Bros. Lumber9/27/2005
pment, and there was evidence that P.B.M.C. knew that employees of the subcontractor were working on a roof without safety devices. Moreover, Stute placed the burden on the general contractor because the general contractor's supervisory authority puts him or her in the best position to ensure compliance. Stute, 114 Wn.2d at 464. Significantly, Stute also determined that the general contractor retained the responsibility to provide safety equipment or to contractually require subcontractors to furnish safety equipment relevant to their responsibilities. Id.
In contrast to Stute, in Shingledecker the court affirmed the dismissal of an action against Redmond Roofing where there was no showing that Redmond Roofing was Mr. Shingledecker's employer or that Redmond Roofing had a supervisory function or control over Mr. Shingledecker's employer, Washington Cedar, or its employees. Shingledecker, 93 Wn. App. at 871-72. Global did not have a non-delegable duty to Ms. Morris under either RCW 49.17.060(1) or (2). There are no facts indicating that Global had a statutory duty as Ms. Morris's employer, or as the general contractor or jobsite owner. The trial court properly dismissed the claim based upon RCW 49.17.060.
In conclusion, we affirm the summary judgment order of the trial court dismissing Mr. Morris's claims against Global.
Kurtz, J.
WE CONCUR:
Kato, C.J.
Sweeney, J.
|