Legal Opinion

Bennerstrom v. Department of Labor & Industries

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided March 29, 2004No. 52168-3-IPublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Cox, A.C.J.

— An employment relationship for purposes of the workers’ compensation laws does not exist absent (a) the employer having a right to control the employee’s physical conduct in the performance of the employee’s duties and (b) the employee’s consent to the employment relationship.1 Here, there is no genuine issue of material fact whether John Bennerstrom consented to the employment relationship. Bennerstrom did not. Moreover, there is no genuine issue of material fact whether Bennerstrom is a domestic servant under applicable law. Bennerstrom is. Accordingly, we hold that the…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Young v. Key Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1989
  3. State v. JohnsonWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Yakima County (West Valley) Fire Protection District No. 12 v. City of YakimaWashington Supreme Court · 1993
  5. Clements v. Travelers Indemnity Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1993

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Department of Labor & Industries v. RowleyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
  2. Jones v. City of OlympiaCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2012
  3. Xenith Group, Inc. v. Department of Labor & IndustriesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2012
  4. Xenith Group v. Dept. of Labor and Indus.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2012
  5. Calvin J. Johnson v. Department Of Labor & IndustriesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2021

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API