You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

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

Citations: 788 P.2d 545; 114 Wash. 2d 454; 1990 Wash. LEXIS 36Docket: 56267-9

Court: Washington Supreme Court; March 29, 1990; Washington; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Supreme Court of Washington addressed the obligations of a general contractor, P.B.M.C. Inc., under the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act of 1973 (WISHA) in a case involving safety violations leading to an injury of a subcontractor's employee, Andre Stute. The trial court's denial of Stute’s motion to modify a ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court, contradicting the Court of Appeals' decision that had relied on *Straw v. Esteem Construction Co.* The Supreme Court clarified the applicability of RCW 49.17.060, emphasizing that the specific duty under WISHA mandates general contractors to ensure safety for all jobsite employees. The court rejected the notion that the duty is limited to direct employees, referencing prior cases like *Adkins v. Aluminum Co. of Am.* and *Goucher v. J.R. Simplot Co.* It held that general contractors, due to their supervisory role and capacity for control, bear primary responsibility for safety compliance. Additionally, the court dismissed the argument of subcontractor responsibility, noting the general contractor's broader capacity to implement safety measures. The case was remanded to the trial court for determination of damages, reaffirming the general contractor's comprehensive duty to uphold workplace safety standards for subcontractor employees.

Legal Issues Addressed

Control and Responsibility of General Contractors

Application: The court emphasized that general contractors are responsible for job safety within common work areas, based on their supervisory role and right to control the worksite.

Reasoning: The necessary measure of control is defined by the right to control, rather than actual control. In Kelley, general supervisory functions were sufficient for establishing control over subcontractor work conditions.

General Contractor's Duty Under WISHA

Application: The court ruled that a general contractor has a duty to ensure a safe working environment for all employees on a jobsite, including those of subcontractors, under WISHA.

Reasoning: The court determined that the general contractor, P.B.M.C. Inc., had a duty to comply with safety regulations under the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act of 1973 (WISHA), which applies to all employees on a jobsite, not just direct employees.

Interpretation of RCW 49.17.060

Application: The statute establishes both a general duty to protect the contractor's own employees and a specific duty that extends to all employees, including those of subcontractors, affected by WISHA violations.

Reasoning: RCW 49.17.060 establishes a dual duty for employers: (1) to protect their own employees from recognized hazards not covered by specific safety regulations, and (2) to comply with WISHA regulations, which applies to all employees on the jobsite, including those of independent contractors.

Nondelegable Duty of Safety

Application: The court upheld that general contractors have a nondelegable duty to ensure a safe working environment for subcontractor employees, as established by WISHA's predecessor statutes.

Reasoning: RCW 49.16.030, WISHA's predecessor, established a nondelegable duty for general contractors to ensure a safe working environment for subcontractor employees, as confirmed by Kelley and Jones v. Robert E. Bayley Constr. Co.