Stute v. P.B.M.C., Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the duty clause in RCW 49.17.060(2) “is not confined to just the employer’s own employees but applies to all employees who may be harmed by an employer’s violation of the WISHA regulations”
• referring to the resulting distinction as a “two-fold duty” and clarifying that “[t]he employer’s duty only extends to employees of independent contractors when a party asserts that the employer did not follow particular WISHA regulations”
• “general contractor[s] should bear the primary responsibility for compliance with safety regulations because the general contractor’s innate supervisory authority constitutes sufficient control over the workplace”
• a general contractor’s duty to an independent contractor’s employee was nondelegable “because the general contractor’s innate supervisory authority constitute[d] sufficient control over the workplace” (emphasis added)
• for a general contractor, the “test of control is the right to exercise control and not the actual exercise of control” (citing Kelley v. Howard S. Wright Constr. Co., 90 Wn.2d 323, 330-31, 582 P.2d 500 (1978))
• primary employer has a duty to provide for safety

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).