Wash. Rev. Code » Title 49 · Chapter 49.17
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 49.17.010 (2026)

Purpose

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The legislature finds that personal injuries and illnesses arising out of conditions of employment impose a substantial burden upon employers and employees in terms of lost production, wage loss, medical expenses, and payment of benefits under the industrial insurance act. Therefore, in the public interest for the welfare of the people of the state of Washington and in order to assure, insofar as may reasonably be possible, safe and healthful working conditions for every man and woman working in the state of Washington, the legislature in the exercise of its police power, and in keeping with the mandates of Article II, section 35 of the state Constitution, declares its purpose by the provisions of this chapter to create, maintain, continue, and enhance the industrial safety and health program of the state, which program shall equal or exceed the standards prescribed by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-596, 84 Stat. 1590).
[ 1973 c 80 s 1.]

Notes:

Industrial insurance: Title 51 RCW.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 88 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Adkins v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 756 P.2d 142 (Wash. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Adkins v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 756 P.2d 142 (Wash. 1988). · cites it 6× “" RCW 49.17.010. The majority then interprets WISHA in such a narrow way as to totally deny its benefit to temporary workers such as Adkins.”
Afoa v. Port of Seattle, 296 P.3d 800 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 3× “RCW 49.17.010, .040. WISHA’s purpose is to assure “safe and healthful working conditions for every man and woman working in the state of Washington” and to “create, maintain, continue, and enhance the industrial safety and health program of the state.”
Martinez-Cuevas v. DeRuyter Bros. Dairy, Inc., 475 P.3d 164 (Wash. 2020). · cites it 2× “WISHA aims to “to assure, insofar as may reasonably be possible, safe and healthful working conditions for every man and woman working in the state of Washington, [and] the legislature in the exercise of its police power .”
Rios v. Wash. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 39 P.3d 961 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 4× “RCW 49.17.010 (emphasis added). Pivotal in this case is the WISHA provision regarding safety and health standards for exposure to toxic agents: [T]he director shall: .”
Stute v. P.B.M.C., Inc., 788 P.2d 545 (Wash. 1990). · cites it 3× “2d at 673 , citing RCW 49.17.010. 1 Thus, the specific duty clause of RCW 49.”
Rios v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 32 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20532 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “050(4). Cf. 29 U.S.C. § 655 (b)(5), (7): "The Secretary, in promulgating standards dealing with toxic materials or harmful physical agents under this subsection, shall set the standard which most adequately assures, to the extent feasible, on the basis of the best available…”
COBRA ROOFING Serv., INC. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 97 P.3d 17 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Workplace Safety § 2:47 (March 2004). Treating the top of the parapet wall as an "upper landing surface" for purposes of WAC 296-155-480(2)(a) serves the broad remedial purpose of the enabling statute, which is "to assure, insofar as may reasonably be possible, safe and…”
Cobra Roofing Serv., Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 122 Wash. App. 402 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “*411 Treating the top of the parapet wall as an “upper landing surface” for purposes of WAC 296-155-480(2)(a) serves the broad remedial purpose of the enabling statute, which is “to assure, insofar as may reasonably be possible, safe and healthful working conditions for every…”
Nat'l Elec. Contractors Ass'n v. Riveland, 5 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1322 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 2× “” RCW 49.17.010. To *25 this end, the statute requires every employer to furnish to each employee a place of employment free from recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause serious injury or death.”
Goucher v. J. R. Simplot Co., 709 P.2d 774 (Wash. 1985). · cites it 3× “, and the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act of 1973 (WISHA), RCW 49.17.010 et seq. Simplot contended that because Goucher had stipulated that the railroad tank car was not defective in any manner, he had impliedly agreed that the tank car met federal statutory and…”
Cudney v. Alsco, Inc., 259 P.3d 244 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 2× “RCW 49.17.010. WISHA requires every person who has employees to (1) "furnish each of his or her employees employment and a place of employment free from recognized hazards that are causing or [are] likely to cause death or serious physical harm," and (2) "comply with industrial…”
Cudney v. ALSCO, Inc., 172 Wash. 2d 524 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 2× “RCW 49.17.010. WISHA requires every person who has employees to (1) “furnish each of his or her employees employment and a place of employment free from recognized hazards that are causing or [are] likely to cause death or serious physical harm” and (2) “comply with industrial…”
Show all 88 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.