DHI Communities Construction of Washington v. Department of Labor & Industries: Case Background
In August 2022, a state safety inspector was driving past a 307-unit apartment and rental-home project in Puyallup, Washington when he noticed something that made him stop. Workers were standing on roof trusses more than ten feet up, with nothing to catch them if they fell.
The inspector took photographs. He found no anchors to tie off a harness, and no written fall protection plan at any of the houses where crews were working. One worker was using a nail gun without eye protection.
None of those workers worked for the company that got the citation. They worked for Northwest Framing, a subcontractor. The citation went to DHI Communities Construction of Washington, the general contractor. The Washington Department of Labor and Industries fined DHI $132,000 in penalties and labeled the most serious violations “willful.”
The Court’s Decision
The Washington Court of Appeals, Division Two, in a published decision, said the citation stands. In a published opinion, it affirmed on every issue DHI raised. DHI Communities Construction of Washington v. Department of Labor & Industries, No. 61057-4-II (Wash. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2026) (published).
The facts that decided the case were mostly about sightlines. DHI had one job trailer on site. The violations were on the same block. The trailer had no windows on the side facing the work. A DHI superintendent testified he was inside and could not see the houses where the violations were happening.
The court accepted that. Because no superintendent actually saw the violations, DHI did not have “actual knowledge.” But the law asks whether DHI could have known through reasonable diligence. The court said it could have. The violations were in plain view from the street and from just outside the trailer. It was a regular workday. The superintendents were on site. DHI’s own superintendent estimated they spent “a little less” than 70 to 80 percent of the day in the field.
There was more. DHI had also recently written up Northwest Framing for fall-safety problems. One superintendent had raised concerns about the subcontractor’s fall exposure with his own supervisors.
DHI’s main argument in its defense was that Washington should adopt the federal “controlling employer” approach. Under that approach, a general contractor’s duty differs from the subcontractor’s duty to its own employees. DHI argued the burden should be on regulators to show the general acted unreasonably.
The court said that was unavailable to it. Under Stute v. P.B.M.C., Inc., 114 Wn.2d 454 (1990), a general contractor’s supervisory authority is “per se control over the workplace” and that the “prime responsibility” for safety rests on the general. A court of appeals cannot overrule or ignore binding authority.
The court did address DHI’s worry about strict liability. A general contractor is not automatically liable whenever a subcontractor slips. The state still must prove the general knew, or through reasonable diligence could have known, of the violation. The court found that proof here.
Finally, the “willful” finding was upheld. A willful violation involves intentional disregard of, or plain indifference to, the rules. DHI argued it could not be indifferent to a duty that had never been clearly defined. The court disagreed; DHI had been cited before under the same fall-safety standards. DHI also could not produce records for 6 of the prior 12 weeks of formal walk-around inspections, even though its supervisors said they spent most of the day in the field. And this was not workers ignoring equipment the company had supplied. There were no anchors at all, even though work on the trusses had started the day before. A thorough walk-around inspection, the court said, “would have revealed these deficiencies.”
Key Takeaways from DHI Communities Construction of Washington
The key takeaway from DHI Communities Construction of Washington: in Washington, the general contractor carries primary responsibility for jobsite safety. General contractors can and will be cited for a subcontractor’s safety violations.
- Not seeing it is no defense if you could have. Regulators can establish constructive knowledge when a violation is in plain view and your supervisors are on site.
- Your own paper trail can be used against you. Written warnings to a subcontractor prove you take safety seriously. They also show you knew the hazard existed. Follow warnings with real corrective action.
- Missing inspection records are a red flag. Gaps in documented walk-around inspections undercut claims of active oversight and supported the willful finding.
- Prior citations raise the stakes. A history of violations under the same standards makes an “unclear duty” argument hard to win.
- Check conditions before work starts, not just compliance after. Have your supervisors confirm anchors, fall protection plans, and equipment are in place before crews go up.
For questions about jobsite safety responsibility, please contact our construction team.
This article is provided for informational purposes only—it does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship between the firm and the reader. Readers should consult legal counsel before taking action relating to the subject matter of this article.
