Opinion ID: 2519635
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Statutory Duty of Care of Jobsite Owner

Text: Kamla argues Space Needle owed him and breached a duty of care under WISHA. Space Needle argues it did not owe him a statutory duty of care because Space Needle did not exercise control over the manner in which Pyro completed its work. In Washington, all general contractors have a nondelegable specific duty to ensure compliance with all WISHA regulations. Stute v. P.B.M.C. Inc., 114 Wash.2d 454, 464, 788 P.2d 545 (1990). The Stute court imposed the per se liability as a matter of policy: to further the purposes of WISHA to assure safe and healthful working conditions for every person working in Washington. Stute, 114 Wash.2d at 464, 788 P.2d 545. This expansive liability is justified because [a] general contractor's supervisory authority is per se control over the workplace. Stute, 114 Wash.2d at 464, 788 P.2d 545. The court of appeals has extended Stute's nondelegable duty of ensuring WISHA compliant work conditions to parties other than general contractors. In Weinert v. Bronco Nat'l Co., 58 Wash.App. 692, 795 P.2d 1167 (1990), Bronco, an owner/developer, hired a contractor to install siding. The contractor, in turn, subcontracted with Adrey Construction, by whom Weinert was employed. Weinert, 58 Wash.App. at 693, 795 P.2d 1167. After Weinert fell off scaffolding erected by Adrey Construction, he sued Bronco arguing Bronco owed him a specific duty to comply with WISHA regulations. Holding Bronco could be liable, the Court of Appeals pointedly noted,  Stute ... rejected the contention that before [the specific] duty could be imposed, there must be proof the general contractor controlled the work of the subcontractor. Weinert, 58 Wash.App. at 696, 795 P.2d 1167. The Weinert court acknowledged Bronco was an owner/developer rather than a general contractor, but employed the Stute rule because [t]he owner/developer's position [was] so comparable to that of the general contractor in Stute that the reasons for the holding in Stute [applied]. Weinert, 58 Wash.App. at 696, 795 P.2d 1167. The appellate courts extended the Stute rule to jobsite owners in Doss v. ITT Rayonier Inc., 60 Wash.App. 125, 803 P.2d 4 (1991). In Doss, ITT Rayonier hired an independent contractor to clean a boiler at one of its mills. A chunk of slag fell and killed a worker employed by the independent contractor. The deceased worker's estate sued ITT Rayonier, alleging it violated a specific WISHA provision. As in Weinert, the Court of Appeals correctly noted that Stute rejected a claim that [the specific] duty ... attached only if the general contractor controlled the work of the subcontractor. Doss, 60 Wash.App. at 128, 803 P.2d 4. The court noted ITT Rayonier was a jobsite owner and not a general contractor, but found no significant difference ... between an owner-independent contractor relationship and a general contractor-subcontractor relationship. Doss, 60 Wash.App. at 127 n. 2, 803 P.2d 4. Our first question is whether jobsite owners are per se liable under the statutory requirements of RCW 49.17.060. They are not. Nothing in chapter 49.17 RCW specifically imposes a duty upon jobsite owners to comply with WISHA. The second question is whether jobsite owners play a role sufficiently analogous to general contractors to justify imposing upon them the same nondelegable duty to ensure WISHA compliance when there is no general contractor. We hold they do not. We discussed the nature of a general contractor's authority in Stute. We recognized a general contractor has authority to influence work conditions at a construction site. Stute, 114 Wash.2d at 461, 788 P.2d 545. We noted other jurisdictions have held since a general contractor controls the property and working conditions, the general contractor will have the duty to provide for safety. Stute, 114 Wash.2d at 462, 788 P.2d 545 (citing Shannon v. Howard S. Wright Constr. Co., 181 Mont. 269, 593 P.2d 438 (1979)). Finally, we relied in part on a California Supreme Court decision that imposed responsibility for safety requirements on those who have the greater practical opportunity and ability to insure compliance with safety standards. Stute, 114 Wash.2d at 462, 788 P.2d 545 (quoting Alber v. Owens, 66 Cal.2d 790, 796-97, 59 Cal.Rptr. 117, 427 P.2d 781 (1967)). Because a general contractor is in the best position, financially and structurally, to ensure WISHA compliance or provide safety equipment to workers, we place the prime responsibility for safety of all workers ... on the general contractor. Stute, 114 Wash.2d at 463, 788 P.2d 545. The same is not true of jobsite owners. Although jobsite owners may have a similar degree of authority to control jobsite work conditions, they do not necessarily have a similar degree of knowledge or expertise about WISHA compliant work conditions. Jobsite owners can run the gamut from an owner/developer with the same degree of knowledge about WISHA compliant work conditions as that of a general contractor to a public corporation without any knowledge about WISHA regulations governing a specific trade. Because jobsite owners may not have knowledge about the manner in which a job should be performed or about WISHA compliant work conditions, it is unrealistic to conclude all jobsite owners necessarily control work conditions. Instead, some jobsite owners may reasonably rely on the contractors they hire to ensure WISHA compliance because those jobsite owners cannot practically instruct contractors on how to complete the work safely and properly. If a jobsite owner does not retain control over the manner in which an independent contractor completes its work, the jobsite owner does not have a duty under WISHA to comply with the rules, regulations, and orders promulgated under [chapter 49.17 RCW]. RCW 49.17.060(2). As we already discussed, Pyro was an independent contractor. Space Needle did not retain the right to control the manner in which Pyro and its employees completed their work; it simply hired the independent contractor and owned the jobsite where Pyro worked. We hold Space Needle is not liable under WISHA for the manner in which Pyro and its employees completed their work.