Seattle Personal Injury Attorney

Archive for the ‘Premises Liability’ Category

A elderly woman went to Best Buy. Another shopper struck her from behind with their cart and injured her. She did not know the identity of the person who ran their cart into her, or whether they had anything in the cart basket that would have obstructed their view.

She sued Best Buy and the shopping cart manufacturer alleging the carts were designed dangerously because the lower base is longer than the upper basket impairing the average shopper’s view of the base, thereby creating a potential trip/knock down hazard. She claimed the cart’s negligent design was a proximate cause of the incident because the upper basket impaired the following customer’s view of the lower base of the cart. She alleged Best Buy failed to maintain a reasonably safe store by allowing customers to use the dangerously designed carts.[1]

The woman retained an expert who testified that “the design of the cart is such that it contributes to this type of accident; it’s foreseeable that this type of accident is going to happen.”  He did not state, however, that on a more probable than not basis the design of the cart was the proximate cause of the accident.

The expert conceded no shopping cart industry design standards exist. And he did not state on a more probable than not basis that the customer ran into the woman because of the alleged design defect, that the basket impaired the customer’s view of the front of the base. Because her alleged design defect claim entails the design of the basket in relation to the customer’s ability or inability to view the front of the base of the cart, the Court ruled she cannot prove on a more probable than not basis that the alleged design defect was a proximate cause of the incident.

The Court of Appeals upheld dismissal.

Our personal injury law firm was not involved in the case described in this article.

A recent Court of Appeals opinion upheld the trial court’s dismissal of an injury claim from a slip and fall in a Toys R Us store. The injury claimant slipped and fell within several feet of the front door to a Toys R Us store and injured her knee. It had snowed earlier that day and the night before.

Contrary to a widely held belief a store is not “automatically” responsible for someone who slips and falls and is in injured in their store. Whether or not the store is liable requires a case-by-case analysis.

Under Washington personal injury law a possessor of land is subject to liability for personal injury by a condition on the land if, but only if he/she

(a) knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, and

(b) should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, and

(c) fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger.

There is an exception to the notice requirement for hazards inherent in the nature of a self-service business or mode of operation, within areas where customers serve themselves.[1] Toys R Us argued and the courts in the case held that the Pimentel notice exception did not apply, because the water on the floor was not caused by the self-service mode of operation of its store, nor did the injured plaintiff slip in a self-service area.

The attorneys for the Toy R Us patron argued that the trial court had erroneously held that a wet floor is never a dangerous condition, as a matter of law, and contends that this position is “absurd.” The Washington Court of Appeals held that this argument was backwards—the trial court did not hold that water on a floor is never a dangerous condition; it rejected her position that a wet floor is always a dangerous condition, and that she was therefore excused from presenting evidence of an unreasonable risk created by this particular wet floor.

The Court of Appeals noted established Washington case law that hold that water on the floor of a retail business does not, in and of itself, create liability.[2]

Her attorneys cited Messina v. Rhodes Co., 67 Wn.2d 19, 406 P.2d 312 (1965). The court distinguished that case because in Messina there more than water tracked in to the store; there was an unusual amount of a foreign substance: dirt, sand, and water. Witnesses in Messina testified there was quite a bit of muddy water on the floor.

If you have been injured in a slip and fall accident you should have an attorney review the case. Slip and fall cases with good facts can be won. But, liability is far from “automatic” and in fact slip and fall cases often are among the most difficult from the standpoint of someone claiming injury.

[1] Pimentel v. Roundup Co., 100 Wn.2d 39, 666 P.2d 888(1983).

[2] Brant v. Market Basket Stores, Inc., 72 Wn.2d 446, 433 P.2d 863 (1967)( Plaintiff slipped and fell inside a store within 8 to 12 feet of an entrance. Summary judgment dismissal upheld); Shumaker v. Charada Inv. Co., 183 Wash. 521, 49 P.2d 44 (1935)(A wet cement surface does not, without more, create a condition dangerous to pedestrians); Merrick v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 67 Wn.2d 426, 407 P.2d 960 (1965)(Sears employee slipped and fell in the bathroom. Dismissal affirmed).

   Our Seattle injury attorney was not involved in the lawsuit described in this article. 

In an unpublished opinion the Washington Court of Appeals recently reversed dismissal of an injury claim of a Tacoma woman who fell on a set of stairs. Read the rest of this entry »

 Our Seattle personal injury attorney did not participate in the lawsuit described.

The Washington Supreme Court in a recent personal injury case ruled on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.[1]  Res ipsa loquitur means “the thing speaks for itself”.“The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur spares the plaintiff the normal requirement of proving specific acts of negligence in cases where a plaintiff asserts that he or she suffered injury, the cause of which cannot be fully explained, and the injury is of a type that would not ordinarily result if the defendant were not negligent. In such cases the jury is permitted to infer negligence. The doctrine permits the inference of negligence on the basis that the evidence of the cause of the injury is practically accessible to the defendant but inaccessible to the injured person.”

The doctrines is “sparingly applied, in peculiar and exceptional cases, and only where the facts and the demands of justice make its application essential’”.

In the case before the Court a tenant had been injured when a dock on which she was walking gave way under her. The landowner had the dock destroyed shortly after the incident, so there is no evidence as to the dock’s condition at the time of the accident. Read the rest of this entry »

Our law firm was not involved in the personal injury lawsuit

described in this article.

In a recent premises liability case Division One of the Washington Court of Appeals considered what duty, if any, a landowner owes to a police officer.[1]

On the night of December 20, 2005, a King County Sheriff’s Department Deputy entered the grounds of Highline High School in Burien, Washington, in response to a call from a school security guard reporting that a burglary was taking place on school property. While searching for the suspected burglar, McDonald slipped and fell on a set of wooden stairs that led to a wooden platform next to a dumpster, injuring himself. McDonald subsequently brought an action against the school district, alleging that it had negligently maintained the property where he fell. Read the rest of this entry »

Our law firm was not involved in the personal injury lawsuit

described in this article.

A customer slipped and fell on a fallen wet floor sign. The trial court dismissed the case on Petsmart’s motion for summary judgment. The Washington Court of Appeals reversed.

The customer several minutes browsing the dog toy aisle. He caught sight of something yellow on the ground, but he did not initially see what it was because he was paying attention to the objects on the shelves in front of him. He stepped on that yellow object, which was a fallen wet floor sign, and fell, injuring himself. Read the rest of this entry »

Our law firm was not involved in the lawsuit described in this article.

The Washington Court of Appeals recently upheld the dismissal of a case in which a person was injured on another’s land.  The injured party was a truck driver who had been inspecting a load and fell while walking on an ungraded area of natural vegetation and injured her ankle.[1] Read the rest of this entry »

By Seattle Personal Injury Lawyer Travis Scott Eller

The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a woman injured in a supermarket.[1]

The woman was injured when she fell in a QFC supermarket floral department.  She claims she was injured as a result of the negligence of the supermarket. Read the rest of this entry »

By Seattle personal injury attorney Scott Eller

The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of a slip and fall case.[1] The claim arose from a fall on snow and ice in the parking lot of a commercial space.  The injured party produced the opinion of an accident reconstruction expert.  The trial court excluded the expert’s testimony and dismissed the injury claim on summary judgment.

The Court of Appeals reversed.  The defendant argued that when an injured party has no memory of the accident and there are no other witnesses the defendant should be entitled to summary judgment.  The Court distinguished earlier cases by pointing out that the injured party in part by the distinction that in the case before them the inured party offered additional testimony that established the conditions of the premises at the time of the accident.  Also, the Court pointed out that on summary judgment the non-moving party has a duty of producing competent evidence, rather than the duty of persuasion needed to win at trial.

The Court also held that the trial court erred by excluding the plaintiff’s expert.  While the admission of expert testimony is within the discretion of the trial court, there was a an abuse of discretion as the expert did not rely on mere hearsay to reach conclusions, but instead discussed the evidence that he considered in forming his opinion, including his inspection of the scene, witness statements, photographs of the scene, photographs of  injuries, medical records, and weather records. The expert explained how he used weather records to conclude that the low spot in the parking lot at the stall where the plaintiff had parked was icy and slippery.

The Court reversed the lower court and sent the case back down for trial.