Opinion ID: 749601
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Government's Conduct

Text: 22 Weimer further contends that the text of the contract is not controlling if the government was actively involved in supervising the operations at the habitat. The courts in Washington look beyond the mere terms of the contract to determine if a principal has retained some control of the workplace. See Phillips v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp., 875 P.2d 1228, 1235 (Wash.Ct.App.1994) (Whether a right to control has been retained depends on the parties' contract, the parties' conduct, and other relevant factors. ). 23 Weimer's evidence of actual control includes the following: (i) The contracting officer, Ackerman, a wildlife biologist, had, in the past, instructed one of the workers to put on his hard hat; (ii) comments from the contracting officer at deposition implying that he believed that his duty when overseeing the operations at Skookum Habitat included looking out for the safety of the employees; 1 and, (iii) the government's request to DeRuwe to drill a hole into each dust cap that didn't already have one. (However, we have already ruled that this evidence should not be considered.) 24 To find duty, the courts in Washington require that plaintiffs show evidence that the principal controlled the performance or method of the work, not merely that the principal insured compliance with the contract. For example, in Phillips, liability of the principal was found where the principal directed that the work of the independent contractor's employees be performed with chain saws; conducted meetings each morning to address safety issues; and routinely gave directions to the employees related to safety. 875 P.2d at 1236. In Hennig, the Washington Supreme Court noted that something more than retaining the right to insure compliance with the contract was needed (even if compliance is directed to safety-related contractual terms), noting that because the defendant did not actively supervise [the independent contractor's] employees, liability would not attach. 802 P.2d at 792. And in Bozung, the Washington appellate court upheld summary judgment in the principal's favor because, although the principal had the right to order the work stopped or to control the order of the work or the right to inspect the progress of the work, such general contractual rights do not mean that the principal controls the method of the subcontractor's work. 711 P.2d at 1093 (emphasis added). 25 By contrast, Ackerman stated that his primary function was to insure compliance with the contract, that he gives DeRuwe leeway in the supervision of his own employees, that DeRuwe is the person responsible for training the employees to operate the system in a safe manner, that he never attends safety meetings, and that neither he nor any other government employee supervise the day-to-day activities of DeRuwe or his employees. 26 The evidence produced by Weimer suggests no more than that the government supervised the operation to the extent necessary to determine that DeRuwe was in compliance with the contract; there is no evidence to raise a genuine question regarding whether the government was actively involved in the supervision of DeRuwe's employees in terms of directing the performance or method of their work.