Advisories & Insights

The State of Washington provides independent contractors with immunity from claims by injured third parties under the "completion and acceptance doctrine." Although most other states have done away with this doctrine, Washington continues to enforce it. The completion and acceptance doctrine provides that the completion of work by an independent contractor, and acceptance of that work by a property owner, absolves the contractor of liability to injured third parties because of the work, subject to certain limited exceptions.

The completion and acceptance doctrine provides a shield to independent contractors from liability to third parties when their work has been completed and accepted by a landowner, even if the work was performed negligently. The doctrine implicitly acknowledges that an independent contractor performs work according to owner specifications and requirements, and that work and its consequences are truly the responsibility of the landowner and not the independent contractor. Therefore, if some condition of the completed and accepted work causes injury to a third party, the contractor, who performed his work according to owner specifications, should not be liable for those injuries. Although Washington law generally does not permit a claim for negligent construction because of the economic loss rule, the doctrine applies regardless of whether the contractor was negligent in carrying out his contract work. The doctrine, as adopted by Washington courts, provides as follows:

"[W]here the work of an independent contractor is completed, turned over to, and accepted by, the owner, the contractor is not liable to third persons for damages or injuries subsequently suffered by reason of the condition of the work, even though he was negligent in carrying out the contract." Tennyson v Plum Creek Timber Co. L.P., 73 Wn.App 550, 558, 872 P.2d 524 (1994).

Acceptance does not require any special formalities; practical acceptance is sufficient. In other words, where the landowner does some action consistent with acceptance of the work, for example using the property after construction, a "practical" acceptance has been found to exist.

There are two exceptions to the doctrine. First, a contractor remains liable for injuries to third parties if the contractor's work resulted in an inherently or imminently dangerous condition. "Inherently dangerous" is not restricted to things that are imminently dangerous all the time like poisons or explosives. However, a condition is inherently dangerous if the nature and quality of it is reasonably certain "to place life and limb in peril." The second exception comes into play where the negligent construction work falls outside of the parties' contract. In other words, where the contractor's alleged negligence was collateral to the contract, the completion and acceptance doctrine does not apply to relieve the contractor from liability to third persons. In such a case the court utilizes the standard negligence principles in determining liability. The mere fact that the alleged negligence occurred during performance of the contract is not enough to bring the case within the scope of the completion and acceptance doctrine if the negligent work was collateral to the contract.

The independent contractor has the burden to establish that the completion and acceptance doctrine applies in order to take advantage of the shield from liability. This shield, although very broad in its protection, is restrained by the two exceptions that provide the general public with protection from inherently or imminently dangerous work performed by a contractor, irrespective of whether the work was accepted by the owner upon completion. In that situation, not only the owner, but also the contractor could be subject to liability for injuries to third parties. The completion and acceptance doctrine also does not shield an independent contractor from breach of contract claims by the landowner and/or other contractors for work that was not performed according to the terms of the contract.