In Eylander v. Prologis Targeted U.S. Logistics Fund, LP, (Dec. 7, 2023), the Washington Supreme Court held that a landowner may delegate to a qualified independent contractor its duty to invitees to remediate known or obvious dangers. The Supreme Court affirmed that it is both possible and reasonable for a landowner to delegate such a duty to an independent contractor who holds itself out as a professional contractor with the experience to assume the delegation. Under such circumstances, the landowner is not responsible for injuries sustained by an employee of the contractor.
Background
Prologis hired an independent contractor, Commercial Industrial Roofing Inc. (“CIR”) to complete roofing maintenance and repair work on its commercial warehouse. Id. at 2. Prologis and CIR’s contract required CIR to abide by all applicable laws and to take sole responsibility for the health and safety of anyone providing services on its behalf. Id. In 2017, CIR employee Jeffrey Eylander (“Eylander”) died when he fell through a skylight while working on the warehouse roof. Id. Eylander’s estate sued Prologis for wrongful death.
The Court of Appeals held that Prologis did not breach its duty to guard Eylander against known or obvious dangers on the premises because it reasonably delegated this responsibility to CIR, which held itself out as capable of handling these delegated responsibilities. The Washington Supreme Court agreed. Id.
Under Eylander, the Court Confirmed That a Landowner May Delegate its Common Duty of Care to Employees of On-Property Contractors Under Certain Circumstances
Under Washington common law, the employees of an independent contractor are invitees on the premises of the landowner who hired the contractor. In general, a landowner owes invitees a duty of reasonable care. The issue before the Washington Supreme Court was whether Prologis could delegate its duty of care to CIR, and if so, what factors made such a delegation appropriate.
It is important to note that Eylander did not involve any claim that Prologis had a nondelegable duty (such as that of general contractors to comply with state safety regulations as Prologis is not a general contractor) or that Prologis had retained control over CIR’s work. Under Washington’s “retained control doctrine,” a jobsite owner or general contractor “who exercise[s] pervasive control over a work site” has a nondelegable duty to keep the work site reasonably safe for all workers. Rather, the issue in Eylander was whether a landowner could delegate to its independent contractor its common law duty of reasonable care toward the contractor’s employees.
A Landowner Must Take Care to Make a Valid Delegation of its Duty
The Court explained that Prologis validly delegated its duty of reasonable care because CIR explicitly agreed by contract to be responsible for the health and safety of all persons providing its services. Additionally, CIR agreed to create a site-specific roofer safety plan in advance of anyone performing work on the roof. These contractual terms established that Prologis delegated its duty of care and that CIR accepted said duty.
The Court also explained that Prologis’ delegation was reasonable because CIR held itself out as a professional roofing company that had the knowledge, expertise, and experience to assume the delegation.
Bottom Line
Prologis confirms the legal separation for certain types of worksite safety between independent contractors and landowners. It also emphasizes the need for clear contracts with regard to the responsibility for worksite and worker safety between a landowner and its independent contractors.
If you or your business need advice on how to navigate landowner liability issues or would like to further discuss this opinion, please contact Andrew Yates, Jennifer Beyerlein, or Hari Kumar.
We provide this information as a service to our clients, colleagues, and friends. It is intended to be a source of general information, not an opinion or legal advice on any specific situation, and does not create an attorney-client relationship with our readers. If you would like more information regarding whether we may assist you in any particular matter, please contact one of our lawyers, using care not to provide any confidential information until we have notified you in writing that there are no conflicts of interest and that we have agreed to represent you on the specific matter that is the subject of your inquiry.