Opinion ID: 2519635
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Retained Control Exception

Text: I stress my agreement with the majority. The majority quite rightly rejects the Space Needle's invitation to abandon our right of retained control test in favor of an actual control test. Majority at 475. I also agree with the majority that a principal who engages an independent contractor is not generally liable for injuries to the employees of the independent contractor. Tauscher, 96 Wash.2d 274, 635 P.2d 426. Generally, imposing liability would be inequitable and in violation of the fundamental principles articulated above because the principal lacks the right and the power to control how the independent contractor performs the work. Hennig, 116 Wash.2d at 133-34, 802 P.2d 790 (citing Epperly, 65 Wash.2d at 785, 399 P.2d 591). An exception exists, however, where the employer of the independent contractor... retains control over some part of the work. The [employer] then has a duty, within the scope of that control, to provide a safe place of work. Kelley, 90 Wash.2d at 330, 582 P.2d 500; accord Bozung v. Condo. Builders, Inc., 42 Wash.App. 442, 446, 711 P.2d 1090 (1985); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 414 (1965); W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 71, at 510 (5th ed.1984). If the Space Needle retained the right of control, and if Kamla can establish that the mechanism of injury was properly within this retained right of control, summary judgment was improper. The heart of Kamla's retained control claim is that the Space Needle retained the right of control over the operations of the elevators and, within that control, had a duty to make the 200 foot level safe while Pyro employees performed their work. I find he has established this connection sufficient to overcome summary judgment. Rather than ask whether, in some global sense, the Space Needle retained the right of control, we should ask a more pointed question: whether the Space Needle retained the right to control the condition or activity alleged to have caused injury. I therefore turn to the mechanism of injury to determine if it properly falls within the scope of the performance of the work (in this case, under the control of Pyro, and therefore engendering no liability for the Space Needle) or a condition of the premises (in this case, under the control of the Space Needle, and therefore potentially engendering liability). Such a distinction may not always be easy, though in this case it is comparatively straightforward. For example, if Kamla had been injured by an explosive provided solely by Pyro, and managed solely by Pyro, the scope of control inquiry would be focused on the performance of the work and the condition of the premises. Unless specific facts (e.g., a contract which required the Space Needle to provide for the safety of the workers) pointed to retained right of control, the principal would have no liability. Here the alleged dangerous condition relates to a condition of the work site and the failure to provide protective barriers, so our scope of retained control inquiry must focus on the elevators. Within the scope of that limited control, the Space Needle had a duty of care. Accord Phillips, 74 Wash.App. at 751, 875 P.2d 1228; Greenleaf v. Puget Sound Bridge & Dredging Co., 58 Wash.2d 647, 652, 364 P.2d 796 (1961) (finding the common law duty was breached by failing to provide proper lighting); Doss, 60 Wash.App. at 130, 803 P.2d 4 (holding that summary judgment was improper because the common law duty might have been breached by failing to provide a safety net above the worker to guard against falling slag). The Space Needle retained sufficient control to prevent the specific risk from ripening to injury, and within the scope of that control, failed to provide a safe workplace. Summary judgment was improper. Further, the Space Needle had some control over the manner in which work was performed. [3] The Space Needle met with Pyro employees several times to discuss safety issues, and specifically discussed the risks associated with moving elevators. These facts show that the Space Needle retained considerable right to control the work. The majority cuts too fine the control that must be retained; the control exerted is sufficient under these facts to defeat summary judgment.