Epperly v. City of Seattle

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing “the distinction between the level of duty to members of the public and the duty of the owner to one engaged to work upon the project as the employee of an independent contractor”
• affirming dismissal of wrongful death suit against premises owner when a large pad eye “designed, fabricated and installed” by the independent contractor failed and permitted a cable to fall
• plaintiff injured at job site, who was employee of contractor, sought to sue owner of property who paid industrial insurance premium
• plaintiff injured at jobsite, who was employee of contractor, sought to sue owner of property who paid industrial insurance premium
• “the city did not supervise the activities of the workmen, did not furnish the appliance which failed and it did nothing affirmatively to increase the risk.”
• “plaintiff would apply the principle to the workman of that independent contractor”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).