9 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Tauscher v. Puget Sound Power & Light Co.green2 sentences2010See, e.g., Tauscher v. Puget Sound Power and Light Co., 96 Wash.2d 274, 278 , 635 P.2d 426 (1981) (stating that "[o]ur decision [in Kelley ] ... was primarily based on the fact that ... the general contractor on a multi-employer project[] retained control over the common work area and thus had the duty, within the scope of that control, to provide a safe place to work for all employees."). 2010See, e.g., Tauscher v. Puget Sound Power and Light Co., 96 Wash.2d 274, 278 , 635 P.2d 426 (1981) (stating that "[o]ur decision [in Kelley ] ... was primarily based on the fact that ... the general contractor on a multi-employer project[] retained control over the common work area and thus had the duty, within the scope of that control, to provide a safe place to work for all employees."). | 2 | 2 |
Kamla v. the Space Needle Corporationgreen2 sentences2013The majority purports to follow Kelley v. Howard S. Wright Construction Co., 90 Wn.2d 323, 329-34 , 582 P.2d 500 (1978) and Kamla v. Space Needle Corp., 147 Wn.2d 114, 121 , 52 P.3d 472 (2002), claiming that under these cases no employment relationship is required and whether the retained control exception applies depends only on whether a principal has retained control over the workplace. 2013The majority purports to follow Kelley v. Howard S. Wright Construction Co., 90 Wn.2d 323, 329-34 , 582 P.2d 500 (1978) and Kamla v. Space Needle Corp., 147 Wn.2d 114, 121 , 52 P.3d 472 (2002), claiming that under these cases no employment relationship is required and whether the retained control exception applies depends only on whether a principal has retained control over the workplace. | 1 | 4 |
Hennig v. Crosby Group, Inc.green2 sentences2013See, e.g., Hennig v. Crosby Grp., Inc., 116 Wn.2d 131, 133-35 , 802 P.2d 790 (1991); Fardig v. Reynolds, 55 Wn.2d 540, 544-45 , 348 P.2d 661 (I960). 6 ¶76 Unfortunately, the majority creates liability without regard to the fact that the justification for the retained control exception does not exist in the absence of an employment relationship between the employer and an independent contractor in the first place. ¶77 Despite the majority’s reliance on Kelley and Kamla, these cases do not support its new rule. 2013See, e.g., Hennig v. Crosby Grp., Inc., 116 Wn.2d 131, 133-35 , 802 P.2d 790 (1991); Fardig v. Reynolds, 55 Wn.2d 540, 544-45 , 348 P.2d 661 (I960). 6 ¶76 Unfortunately, the majority creates liability without regard to the fact that the justification for the retained control exception does not exist in the absence of an employment relationship between the employer and an independent contractor in the first place. ¶77 Despite the majority’s reliance on Kelley and Kamla, these cases do not support its new rule. | 1 | 3 |
Stute v. P.B.M.C., Inc.green2 sentences2010The expert's declaration that the Arnolds submitted with the motion stated that the Limpet asbestos used on the Alaska ferries at Lockheed would have violated the then-existing air standard for asbestos exposure. [10] Our Supreme Court observed that "[a]lthough Funk was effectively overruled by Hardy v. Monsanto Enviro-Chem Sys., Inc., 414 Mich. 29 , 323 N.W.2d 270 (1982), on the issue of contributory negligence, its reasoning with respect to the duty of general contractors is still sound and accepted." Stute v. P.B.M.C., Inc., 114 Wash.2d 454, 462 , 788 P.2d 545 (1990). [11] We note that the 2010The expert's declaration that the Arnolds submitted with the motion stated that the Limpet asbestos used on the Alaska ferries at Lockheed would have violated the then-existing air standard for asbestos exposure. [10] Our Supreme Court observed that "[a]lthough Funk was effectively overruled by Hardy v. Monsanto Enviro-Chem Sys., Inc., 414 Mich. 29 , 323 N.W.2d 270 (1982), on the issue of contributory negligence, its reasoning with respect to the duty of general contractors is still sound and accepted." Stute v. P.B.M.C., Inc., 114 Wash.2d 454, 462 , 788 P.2d 545 (1990). [11] We note that the | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kelley v. Howard S. Wright Construction Co.
green
2 sentences2013The majority purports to follow Kelley v. Howard S. Wright Construction Co., 90 Wn.2d 323, 329-34 , 582 P.2d 500 (1978) and Kamla v. Space Needle Corp., 147 Wn.2d 114, 121 , 52 P.3d 472 (2002), claiming that under these cases no employment relationship is required and whether the retained control exception applies depends only on whether a principal has retained control over the workplace. 2013The majority purports to follow Kelley v. Howard S. Wright Construction Co., 90 Wn.2d 323, 329-34 , 582 P.2d 500 (1978) and Kamla v. Space Needle Corp., 147 Wn.2d 114, 121 , 52 P.3d 472 (2002), claiming that under these cases no employment relationship is required and whether the retained control exception applies depends only on whether a principal has retained control over the workplace. | 2 | 2013–2024 |
Kamla v. Space Needle Corp.
green
2 sentences2013The majority purports to follow Kelley v. Howard S. Wright Construction Co., 90 Wn.2d 323, 329-34 , 582 P.2d 500 (1978) and Kamla v. Space Needle Corp., 147 Wn.2d 114, 121 , 52 P.3d 472 (2002), claiming that under these cases no employment relationship is required and whether the retained control exception applies depends only on whether a principal has retained control over the workplace. 2013The majority purports to follow Kelley v. Howard S. Wright Construction Co., 90 Wn.2d 323, 329-34 , 582 P.2d 500 (1978) and Kamla v. Space Needle Corp., 147 Wn.2d 114, 121 , 52 P.3d 472 (2002), claiming that under these cases no employment relationship is required and whether the retained control exception applies depends only on whether a principal has retained control over the workplace. | 2 | 2005–2013 |
Afoa v. Port of Seattle
green
2 sentences2023Afoa, 191 Wn.2d at 117 (quoting Afoa v. Port of Seattle, 176 Wn.2d 460, 481 , 296 P.3d 800 (2013)); see also Stute v. P.B.M.C., Inc., 114 Wn.2d 454, 464 , 788 P.2d 545 (1990). 2023Afoa, 191 Wn.2d at 117 (quoting Afoa v. Port of Seattle, 176 Wn.2d 460, 481 , 296 P.3d 800 (2013)); see also Stute v. P.B.M.C., Inc., 114 Wn.2d 454, 464 , 788 P.2d 545 (1990). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Gilbert H. Moen Co. v. Island Steel Erectors, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017But as discussed, we do not read the comparative fault statute to render the established retained control doctrine and WISHA specific duty standard meaningless. 98 128 Wn.2d 745 , 912 P.2d 472 (1996). 99 Id. at 757-59 . 100 Id. at 748-51 . 101 id. 102 Id. at 747 . 103 Accordingly, we need not address the other issues Afoa raises on cross appeal. 2017But as discussed, we do not read the comparative fault statute to render the established retained control doctrine and WISHA specific duty standard meaningless. 98 128 Wn.2d 745 , 912 P.2d 472 (1996). 99 Id. at 757-59 . 100 Id. at 748-51 . 101 id. 102 Id. at 747 . 103 Accordingly, we need not address the other issues Afoa raises on cross appeal. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Fardig v. Reynolds
green
2 sentences2013See, e.g., Hennig v. Crosby Grp., Inc., 116 Wn.2d 131, 133-35 , 802 P.2d 790 (1991); Fardig v. Reynolds, 55 Wn.2d 540, 544-45 , 348 P.2d 661 (I960). 6 ¶76 Unfortunately, the majority creates liability without regard to the fact that the justification for the retained control exception does not exist in the absence of an employment relationship between the employer and an independent contractor in the first place. ¶77 Despite the majority’s reliance on Kelley and Kamla, these cases do not support its new rule. 2013See, e.g., Hennig v. Crosby Grp., Inc., 116 Wn.2d 131, 133-35 , 802 P.2d 790 (1991); Fardig v. Reynolds, 55 Wn.2d 540, 544-45 , 348 P.2d 661 (I960). 6 ¶76 Unfortunately, the majority creates liability without regard to the fact that the justification for the retained control exception does not exist in the absence of an employment relationship between the employer and an independent contractor in the first place. ¶77 Despite the majority’s reliance on Kelley and Kamla, these cases do not support its new rule. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Hardy v. Monsanto Enviro-Chem Systems, Inc
green
2 sentences2010The expert's declaration that the Arnolds submitted with the motion stated that the Limpet asbestos used on the Alaska ferries at Lockheed would have violated the then-existing air standard for asbestos exposure. [10] Our Supreme Court observed that "[a]lthough Funk was effectively overruled by Hardy v. Monsanto Enviro-Chem Sys., Inc., 414 Mich. 29 , 323 N.W.2d 270 (1982), on the issue of contributory negligence, its reasoning with respect to the duty of general contractors is still sound and accepted." Stute v. P.B.M.C., Inc., 114 Wash.2d 454, 462 , 788 P.2d 545 (1990). [11] We note that the 2010The expert's declaration that the Arnolds submitted with the motion stated that the Limpet asbestos used on the Alaska ferries at Lockheed would have violated the then-existing air standard for asbestos exposure. [10] Our Supreme Court observed that "[a]lthough Funk was effectively overruled by Hardy v. Monsanto Enviro-Chem Sys., Inc., 414 Mich. 29 , 323 N.W.2d 270 (1982), on the issue of contributory negligence, its reasoning with respect to the duty of general contractors is still sound and accepted." Stute v. P.B.M.C., Inc., 114 Wash.2d 454, 462 , 788 P.2d 545 (1990). [11] We note that the | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Kinney v. Space Needle Corp.
neutral
1 sentence2005Kamla, 147 Wn. 2d at 121 ; Kinney, 121 Wn. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Kinney v. Space Needle Corp.
green
1 sentence2005Id. at 247-48, 85 P.3d 918 . ¶ 28 Examining the record here, there is insufficient evidence to raise a question of fact as to whether the retained control exception applies. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.