Wash. Rev. Code § 49.17.060
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Each employer:
(1) Shall furnish to each of his or her employees a place of employment free from recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause serious injury or death to his or her employees: PROVIDED, That no citation or order assessing a penalty shall be issued to any employer solely under the authority of this subsection except where no applicable rule or regulation has been adopted by the department covering the unsafe or unhealthful condition of employment at the workplace; and
(2) Shall comply with the rules, regulations, and orders promulgated under this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 90
cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Adkins v. ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AM.
Adkins v. ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AM. (1988)
“Adkins a nondelegable general duty to provide a safe workplace pursuant to RCW 49.17.060? DECISION ISSUE ONE. CONCLUSION.”
SuperValu, Inc. v. Department of Labor (2006)
“For instance, RCW 49.17.060 imposes two duties on employers, one general and one specific.”
Afoa v. Port of Seattle (2013)
“ll furnish to each of his or her employees a place of employment free from recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause serious injury or death to his or her employees: PROVIDED, That no citation or order assessing a penalty shall be issued to any employer solely under…”
SuperValu, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2006)
“For instance, RCW 49.17.060 imposes two duties on employers, one general and one specific.”
Kamla v. the Space Needle Corporation (2002)
“The trial court granted Space Needle’s summary judgment motion. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding Space Needle did not owe Kamla a common law duty of care based on retained control or a duty of care under RCW 49.”
Kamla v. Space Needle Corp. (2002)
“The trial court granted Space Needle's summary judgment motion. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding Space Needle did not owe Kamla a common law duty of care based on retained control or a duty of care under RCW 49.”
J.E. Dunn Northwest, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2007)
“¶18 The duties of employers under WISHA are enumerated in RCW 49.17.060, which contains both a general duty clause and a specific duty clause.”
Afoa v. Port of Seattle (2018)
“Under WlSHA, all employers must comply with distinct duties arising from RCW 49.17.060’s two subsections Id. at 471 (citing Goacher v.”
Stute v. P.B.M.C., Inc. (1990)
“RCW 49.17.060 provides: Each employer: (1) Shall furnish to each of his employees a place of employment free from recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause serious injury or death to his employees .”
Morris v. Vaagen Bros. Lumber, Inc. (2005)
“130 RCW 49.17.060. Under RCW 49.17.060(1) and (2), WISHA requires employers to (1) provide a safe work environment for its employees and (2) comply with all applicable WISHA regulations.”
Bozung v. Condominium Builders, Inc. (1985)
“Under these circumstances, we fail to see how Builders should have anticipated the harm to Bozung or that Tucci would fail to take reasonable measures to protect its employees against the obvious danger.”
Millican v. N.A. Degerstrom, Inc. (2013)
“¶23 The specific duty clause of RCW 49.17.060 is not the only statute reflecting the legislature’s intent that a general contractor’s duty for WISHA compliance runs to its subcontractors’ employees.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.17.060(1) — 37 cases
Adkins v. ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AM. (1988)
“Adkins a nondelegable general duty to provide a safe workplace pursuant to RCW 49.17.060? DECISION ISSUE ONE. CONCLUSION.”
SuperValu, Inc. v. Department of Labor (2006)
“For instance, RCW 49.17.060 imposes two duties on employers, one general and one specific.”
SuperValu, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2006)
“For instance, RCW 49.17.060 imposes two duties on employers, one general and one specific.”
Morris v. Vaagen Bros. Lumber, Inc. (2005)
“130 RCW 49.17.060. Under RCW 49.17.060(1) and (2), WISHA requires employers to (1) provide a safe work environment for its employees and (2) comply with all applicable WISHA regulations.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.17.060(2) — 56 cases
Adkins v. ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AM. (1988)
“Adkins a nondelegable general duty to provide a safe workplace pursuant to RCW 49.17.060? DECISION ISSUE ONE. CONCLUSION.”
Afoa v. Port of Seattle (2013)
“ll furnish to each of his or her employees a place of employment free from recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause serious injury or death to his or her employees: PROVIDED, That no citation or order assessing a penalty shall be issued to any employer solely under…”
Afoa v. Port of Seattle (2018)
“Under WlSHA, all employers must comply with distinct duties arising from RCW 49.17.060’s two subsections Id. at 471 (citing Goacher v.”
Kamla v. the Space Needle Corporation (2002)
“The trial court granted Space Needle’s summary judgment motion. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding Space Needle did not owe Kamla a common law duty of care based on retained control or a duty of care under RCW 49.”
Kamla v. Space Needle Corp. (2002)
“The trial court granted Space Needle's summary judgment motion. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding Space Needle did not owe Kamla a common law duty of care based on retained control or a duty of care under RCW 49.”
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.