Washington Contractors: Foreseeable Risks Impose a Foreseeable Duty

From the Desk of Brian Schiewe:

Complex workplace safety cases can hinge on the interpretation of control and foreseeability. This ruling emphasizes the nondelegable nature of safety obligations under Washington law and requires that all parties involved in a construction project carefully assess their roles in maintaining safe working environments. Duties in tort extend beyond strict contractual obligations when workplace safety is at stake.

Claims Pointer:

The central issue here is whether the general contractor (C4Digs) and the subcontractor (Leonardi Landscaping) owed a duty of care to the decedent, Ducas Aucoin, who was killed when his forklift rolled on a steep adjacent street while delivering pavers to a construction site. The Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for both defendants and allowed the estate’s negligence claims to proceed. The appellate court ruled that the facts suggest both parties may have retained sufficient control or engaged in actions that created foreseeable risks, necessitating further review.

Aucoin expands the potential for general contractors and subcontractors to be held liable in tort for offsite or adjacent-site injuries based on theories of control and foreseeability. Importantly, summary judgment is now more difficult to obtain in these disputes, and risk transfer provisions as well as active site management must be scrutinized more rigorously during both contract drafting and claim defense.

Aucoin v. C4Digs, Inc., 555 P3d 884, 896 (Wash Ct App 2024)

Facts:

In May 2018, delivery driver Ducas Aucoin was tasked with bringing pavers to a construction site managed by general contractor C4Digs in Seattle. The site featured a designated loading zone on 26th Avenue, which was intended to provide a safe area for deliveries. However, when Aucoin arrived, the designated loading zone was blocked by a subcontractor’s vehicle, forcing Aucoin to unload his heavy materials on a steeply sloped street adjacent to the site. Tragically, Aucoin’s forklift rolled during the process, resulting in his death.

The lawsuit, brought by Aucoin’s estate and surviving family members, alleged negligence on the part of C4Digs and Leonardi Landscaping, the subcontractor responsible for scheduling the delivery. The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of both defendants, reasoning that neither owed a duty to Aucoin because the accident occurred offsite and beyond their control. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that C4Digs retained oversight over delivery operations and Leonardi’s failure to coordinate with C4Digs created a hazardous situation.

Law:

Washington’s workplace safety framework is built on the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA), which aims to ensure safe and healthy working conditions for all employees. RCW 49.17.060 imposes duties on employers to provide a workplace free from recognized hazards and to comply with safety regulations. These obligations are nondelegable, meaning they extend to all workers on the site, not just direct employees of the employer.

In addition to statutory duties, Washington law imposes a common law duty of care on general contractors who retain control over workplace conditions. This duty requires them to ensure safety measures are in place to protect workers, regardless of their employment relationship. Similarly, subcontractors can owe a duty of reasonable care when their actions foreseeably create risks of harm, even if they do not have direct control over the job site. The key elements in both statutory and common law duties are control and foreseeability, which determine whether a party’s actions contributed to an unsafe environment.

Analysis:

The Washington Court of Appeals, reversed summary judgment for the Defendants. The appellate court addressed two questions: whether the general contractor, C4Digs, retained enough control over deliveries to owe a duty of care, and whether the subcontractor, Leonardi Landscaping, created a foreseeable risk of harm by scheduling the delivery without coordinating with the general contractor.

The court relied on Vargas v. Inland Washington, LLC and Stute v. PBMC, Inc., both of which clarify the obligations of general contractors under WISHA. In Vargas, the court held that a general contractor’s duty to provide a safe workplace extended to all employees working onsite. In Stute, a general contractor was held liable for failing to ensure safety measures for a subcontractor’s employee. The court in Aucoin applied the same reasoning, finding that general contractors have a nondelegable duty to maintain safe conditions where they retain control over jobsite operations. C4Digs had established and maintained a designated loading zone for deliveries. Its project manager had previously redirected other deliveries to that area and arranged for vehicles to be moved or towed when necessary. The appellate court found that the practice supported an inference that C4Digs retained control over delivery logistics, but whether that control was sufficient to impose liability was a disputed factual issue to be resolved at the trial court level.

The court then turned to Leonardi Landscaping’s role. Unlike C4Digs, Leonardi’s duties were based on general tort principles. The court found that arranging a delivery involving heavy equipment to a sloped street—without notice to C4Digs—posed a foreseeable risk of harm. The blocked loading zone and Leonardi’s lack of coordination forced the delivery driver to attempt unloading in an unsafe area. According to the court, this created a risk that Leonardi should have anticipated. The fact that Leonardi had not yet started physical work on the site did not relieve it of responsibility for its scheduling decisions.

Both defendants argued that they had no duty because the incident occurred offsite and outside their direct control. C4Digs claimed its obligations did not extend outside of its designated loading zone, while Leonardi maintained that it was not actively involved at the time of the accident. The appellate court rejected both arguments. Citing Stute and Vargas, the court stated that liability depends on whether the defendant had control over the work or whether its conduct created a foreseeable hazard. Here, both control and foreseeability were in dispute, precluding summary judgment.

The case was then remanded for further proceedings.

Big Picture:

The Aucoin decision expands potential liability for general contractors and subcontractors by holding that workplace safety duties can extend to adjacent areas and to third-party delivery personnel, depending on control and foreseeability. The appellate court made clear that formal jobsite boundaries and employment relationships are not determinative; what matters is whether the defendant retained authority over the work or created a foreseeable risk through its conduct. By reversing summary judgment, the appellate court has determined that safety obligations under WISHA and tort law apply to all parties whose actions influence jobsite conditions, even before physical work begins. This ruling will likely make early dismissal more difficult in similar cases and signals the need for tighter coordination and clearer documentation of safety responsibilities during construction projects.