Kamla v. Space Needle Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that Space Needle’s argument as regarded § 343 improperly “ignores section 343A”
• noting that Space Needle's argument as regarded § 343 improperly \ignores section 343A\
• a jobsite owner does not have a duty to comply with WISHA unless it retained control over the manner in which the work was completed
• “Properly framed, the question in this case is whether Space Needle should have anticipated Kamla’s harm, despite the obvious hazard posed by the moving elevators.”
• a jobsite owner does not have a duty to comply with WISHA unless it retained control over the manner in which the work was completed
• \`\The retention of the right to inspect and supervise to insure the proper completion of the contract does not vitiate the independent contractor relationship.\'\ (quoting Hennig v. Crosby Grp., Inc., 116 Wash.2d 131, 134, 802 P.2d 790 (1991

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).