Weisberger v. Commissioner

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that article II, section 35 “requires the legislature” to enact laws protecting employees working in dangerous conditions
• recognizing Port’s potential liability under two theories of liability previously applied in other multiemployer workplace cases: (1) “the duty of a general contractor to maintain a safe common area for any employee of subcontractors” and (2) “for breach of safety regulations under [WISHA]”
• “Jobsite owners such as the Port have a statutory duty to prevent WISHA violations if they retain control over work done on a jobsite.’’
• “We hold only that jobsite owners must comply with WISHA regulations if they retain control over the manner and instrumentalities[6] of work done at the jobsite.”
• “We held that the relevant inquiry is whether the principal retained control over the work site, not whether there was a direct employment relationship between the parties.” (describing the holding in Kelley)
• “The Port is an 5 ‘employer’ and Afoa is an ‘employee’ under the statute. That is all WISHA requires 6 for a specific duty to arise . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).