Skip to main content

Kamla v. Space Needle Corp.

Citations

  • 52 P.3d 472

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).

Judges: Johnson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

40 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

30 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Kamla v. Space Needle Corp.

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.