Archive for the ‘Injury Claims Against Government’ Category
$1.3 Million Verdict Upheld on Appeal
Our law firm was not involved in the case described.
A man sued King County (Metro) to recover damages for severe injuries that he sustained after slipping while exiting a county operated bus on a rainy day. At trial he introduced evidence that yellow nosing strips, located at the edges of the stairs of Metro buses, become dangerously slippery when wet. At the conclusion of his case in chief, Metro moved for judgment as a matter of law based upon the lack of direct evidence that the man had stepped on a yellow nosing strip or that the strip was wet at the time of the incident. The trial court denied the motion, and the jury found that Metro’s negligence was the sole cause of the man’s injuries and found Metro liable for $1.3 million in damages.
Following the verdict, a juror testified that he had tested the slipperiness of a yellow nosing strip while exiting a Metro bus on the last day of trial. Although Metro knew that the court had provided bus passes to jurors for use during jury service, Metro moved for a new trial based on juror misconduct. The trial court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals agreed and upheld the verdict.[1]
Although this case ended well for the injured bus passenger, no two cases are exactly alike. Many factors can influence the outcome of a personal injury case. If you have questions about an injury claim you should consult an attorney.
Posted in 
Tags: 
Court of Appeals Rules in Public Duty Doctrine Case
Our Seattle injury attorney was not involved in the lawsuit described in this article.
The Washington Court of Appeals recently ruled that application of the public duty doctrine negated a claim against a fire district for the destruction of a partially constructed house and other property.[1] The same analysis applies to personal injury claims. Read the rest of this entry »
Courts Review Tort Claim Form Requirements
Our law firm was not involved in the lawsuit described in this article.
Anyone making a claim against a government body in Washington must complete and serve a tort claim form prior to filing a lawsuit.
In a recent case the trial court dismissed a lawsuit because the claimant listed damages as “undetermined pending further investigation” and had failed to state each of his previous addresses as required. Read the rest of this entry »
Rescue Doctrine
Under the rescue doctrine a public entity has a special duty to exercise reasonable care after assuming a duty to warn or come to the aid of a particular plaintiff.[1] That special duty exists because a public entity’s assurances may induce reliance. A person who voluntarily promises to perform a service for another in need has a duty to exercise reasonable care when the promise induces reliance and causes the promise to refrain from seeking help elsewhere.[2] Read the rest of this entry »
Failure to Enforce
Washington governmental entities are immune to liability under the public duty doctrine for duties owed to the public generally. “Failure to enforce” is a recognized exception to this rule. Read the rest of this entry »
The Public Duty Doctrine and Legislative Intent
The public duty doctrine is a defense to claims against state and local governmental entities. The doctrine in its simplest terms is express by the observation that a “duty to all is a duty to no one”.[1]
The legislative intent exception applies where the terms of a statute evidence a clear intent to identify and protect a particular and circumscribed class of persons.[2] The statutory language must clearly express this intent; a court will not imply it.[3] Where the legislative intent exception applies, a member of the identified class may bring a tort action against the governmental entity for its violation of the statute.[4]
Public Duty Doctrine
To prove a claim for injury the injury victim must prove the existence of a duty and breach of the duty.
In Washington the state Supreme Court has adopted the public duty doctrine.[1] If the injury claim is against a non-federal governmental entity the injury claimant must prove there was a duty specific to the individual, rather to the public generally. Otherwise, if no duty of care is owed to the individual the injury claimant has no valid negligence claim. “A duty to all is a duty to no one”.[2]
