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.