Contact Injury Attorney

206-801-1188
425-641-8010

877-50-INJURY
877-504-6587

Injury Practice Areas
Practice Area:
Injury Case Evaluation
Free personal injury attorney case evaluation.

Seattle Personal Injury Attorney » Auto Accidents

Those Who Wait

Our law firm did not participate in the lawsuit described in this article.   A woman was injured in an automobile accident on August 2, 2006. Her attorney filed a lawsuit on her behalf on July 30, 2009, a mere four days prior to the running of the statute of limitations.[1]  [2]   The injured [...]

Budget Truck Rental Sued Over Driver High on Meth

Our firm was not involved in the litigation discussed in this article.   A man smoked methamphetamine at 5:00 a.m.  At about 2:00 p.m. he rented a truck from Budget. The following afternoon he ran over a woman in a crosswalk. At the scene an officer observed the driver exhibiting symptoms of methamphetamine use: fast [...]

Tax Day Deadly

According to a recent study the rate of auto accident fatalities is measurably higher than normal on tax day.[1]   The researches looked at 30 years of data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and determined that there is a six percent increase in roadway fatalities on tax day.   According to an article [...]

Pregnant Woman Passes out Behind the Wheel Leading to Injury Accident

Our personal injury law firm was not involved in the case described. A woman who was eight months pregnant lost consciousness while driving to work in her truck. She rear ended one car and then hit a parked car. She was traveling at over 30 miles per hour when her truck crashed into the parked [...]

Auto Accident Injury Victim’s Default Judgment Set Aside

Our law firm was not involved in the personal injury lawsuit described in this article. A woman injured in a motor vehicle accident served the Washington Secretary of State because she was unable to locate the other driver to effect personal service.  The trial court entered a default judgment.  The court awarded $12,000 in general [...]

Seattle Personal Injury Attorney » Washington Personal Injury Law

Another One Bites the Dust – Yet Another Statute of Limitations Case

Our law firm was not involved in the personal injury lawsuit discussed in this article.   Typically a few times in any given year the Washington Court of Appeals upholds the dismissal of a handful of personal injury cases because of a failure to bring the case prior to the expiration of the statute of [...]

Family Jet Ski Doctrine?

Our firm was not involved in the case described in this article.   A boat driver was injured when jet skiers cut off his boat and he had to make an abrupt maneuver to avoid hitting one of the jet skis. As a result a passenger in the boat fell on the driver. The driver [...]

Insurance Companies Appeal Decisions Against the Wishes of their Customers

Some people are inclined to blame the injured party for bringing their case to court, and tend to assume that they must just be greedy and stubborn in not settling out of court.   In Washington many personal injury claims are subject to mandatory arbitration before the parties can have a jury trial.[1] Either side [...]

Parents Not Liable for Teenager’s Assault with Gun

A teenager who had been drinking assaulted with the butt of a shotgun someone who was attempting to take away his car keys. The shotgun was a gift from the minor’s parents. They allowed him to keep it in his truck.   The man suffered several facial fractures and incurred $40,000 in medical bills. He [...]

Yet Another Statute of Limitations Case

Our law firm was not involved in the personal injury case described in this article. Recently there have been several personal injury cases dismissed for failure to properly bring the action within the statute of limitations and the dismissal upheld on appeal. A case must be brought within the applicable statute if limitations period or [...]

Posts Tagged ‘Defective Product’

The Infant Crib Safety Act is Not Dumb

A humor website that lists various “dumb laws” reckons the Infant Crib Safety Act to number among that category. The Infant Crib Safety Act requires that cribs sold retail in Washington meet certain safety requirements. Each and every safety requirement in the Act is based on experience. Each safety requirement addresses a hazard that has seriously harmed or killed infants in cribs. The safety requirements are not hypotheticals.

Some of the requirements in the Infant Crib Safety Act of necessity sound arbitrary.  For instance, experience teaches that prominent corner posts sticking above the end panels of cribs pose a hazard because children’s clothes can get and has gotten caught on high corner posts, presenting a serious strangling hazard.

Like speed limits, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Why 35 mph in a given area? Why not 30 mph?  It is of necessity somewhat arbitrary. Yet few of us would want to travel on the roadways if there were no speed limits.

Experience teaches that corner posts on cribs more than 1/6 inch higher than the end panels are a hidden hazard most parents would not be aware of intuitively.  And that is why this and other safety requirements exist.

Also, the website states with misleading broadness that “you” are breaking the law if “you” sell a crib that is not in compliance with the Act.   Well, only if “you” are a commercial user as defined in the Act, which includes “you” if and only if “you” deal in cribs or if “you” hold yourself out as having knowledge or skill peculiar to cribs. This includes, for example, “child care facilities and family child care homes licensed by the department of social and health services.”[1]

So, unless “you” fall into that definition, and most of us parents and ordinary consumers certainly do not, “you” are not breaking this law by buying or selling a non-compliant crib in a private sale. Nevertheless, it is prudent to discard older cribs and purchase newer, safer ones that meet all current safety standards.

 

And, no. Children’s safety is not dumb and this is not a dumb law.



[1] RCW 70.111.020

 

Defective Shopping Cart Suit Against Best Buy Dismissed

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.



[1] Donohue v. Best Buy et. al., unpublished opinion (Wash. Ct. App. No. 29573-7-III, 2011).

Couple Receive Harley-Davidson Recall Notice the Day after Husband Killed in Accident

Our personal injury law firm did not participate in the lawsuit described in this article

 A man was killed and his wife injured when the Harley-Davidson motorcycle he was riding crossed several lanes and collided with a guardrail. The next day the wife received a recall notice informing her that the main circuit breaker on the motorcycle might have a defect that could cause it to “open due to reasons other than for which it was designed,” therefore, causing a “‘quit while riding’ situation.”

 Suit was filed alleging Harley-Davidson was liable under the Washington Products Liability Act.[1] Read the rest of this entry »

Toyota Defects Lead to Injury Lawsuits

By now we have all heard about the Toyota recalls.  According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration five deaths and 17 injuries have been attributed to unintended acceleration in Toyota vehicles since 2006.[1] Read the rest of this entry »

Dismissal of Products Liability Case Upheld

By personal injury lawyer Scott Eller

In a recent opinion the Washington Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a products liability case brought against the retail business that sold an allegedly defective bicycle.

The plaintiff had been injured when the front tire of the bicycle failed the very first time he rode the bicycle.  The plaintiff alleged that the tire failure was due to the retailer improperly installing the front brakes.

Among other defenses the retailer alleged there was no proof of proximate causation.  The case was dismissed on summary judgment.  This result was upheld by Division III of the Court of Appeals.

The plaintiff’s case was complicated by the fact that shortly after the accident the bicycle was stolen and no longer available as evidence.  The Court found that the only evidence of negligence were the stale and inadmissible hearsay statements of the unknown Costco employee and of a repairman from years earlier.

The Court noted that “proximate cause is ordinarily a jury question but may be determined on summary judgment if reasonable minds could reach only one conclusion. …[P]roof of proximate cause must rise above speculation or conjecture.”

The plaintiff had stated in deposition testimony that he “did not inspect the bicycle on the day of the accident. He did not know why the bicycle tire blew out or if the brakes were assembled improperly…In fact [the plaintiff] conceded that he did not ‘know the facts’ regarding the alleged deficient assembly”.

The outcome may have been different if the repairman could recollect what was allegedly wrong with the brake assembly and/or if the bicycle were still available in its unaltered condition for inspection by expert witnesses.

As it was, the Court held that the plaintiff could not prove his injuries were caused by the retailers alleged negligence or breach of warranty.

Breach of Warranty

A product liability claim may be based on breach of warranty.  A manufacturer may be liable under Washington products liability law even in the absence of design defects, construction defects, or a failure to warn if the product fails a warranty. A warranty may be expressed or implied. Read the rest of this entry »

Failure to Warn

A product liability claim may be based on a theory of failure to warn.[1] The standard, like design defect product liability claims, is the reasonable expectations of the consumer rather than foreseeability.[2] Read the rest of this entry »

Design Defects

To prove a design defect products liability claim the injured party must prove that a manufacturer’s product was not reasonable safe as designed and caused injury.[1] The injured part may prove a design defect by either of two tests, the risk-utility test or the consumer expectations test.[2] Read the rest of this entry »

Attorney Rating
National Institute for Trial Advocacy - Advocate designation

Independent Attorney Rating

Personal Injury Attorney
Korean Speaking Paralegal
Testimonials. Case Results.
  • $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 […]
    Seattle Personal Injury Lawyer
  • Drunk Man Bounced from Bar Assaults Woman in Downtown Seattle
    A man drank great quantities of alcohol of various kinds after work on Sunday, June 21, 2009. Later, he and a companion ended up at The Triple Door bar in downtown Seattle. The man recalls that he was drunk when he arrived and that he had some more to drink at The Triple Door, but […]
    Seattle Personal Injury Lawyer
  • Those Who Wait
    Our law firm did not participate in the lawsuit described in this article.   A woman was injured in an automobile accident on August 2, 2006. Her attorney filed a lawsuit on her behalf on July 30, 2009, a mere four days prior to the running of the statute of limitations.[1]  [2]   The injured […]
    Seattle Personal Injury Lawyer
  • Budget Truck Rental Sued Over Driver High on Meth
    Our firm was not involved in the litigation discussed in this article.   A man smoked methamphetamine at 5:00 a.m.  At about 2:00 p.m. he rented a truck from Budget. The following afternoon he ran over a woman in a crosswalk. At the scene an officer observed the driver exhibiting symptoms of methamphetamine use: fast […]
    Seattle Personal Injury Lawyer
  • Sloppy Carpet and Sloppy Lawyering
    Our law firm was not involved in the case described in this article.   A tenant tripped in a tear in the carpet of her apartment unit and sued the apartment complex. In the complaint the tenant alleged breach of contract and violations of federal regulations governing the structural soundness of federally subsidized housing.[1]   […]
    Seattle Personal Injury Lawyer
  • Another One Bites the Dust – Yet Another Statute of Limitations Case
    Our law firm was not involved in the personal injury lawsuit discussed in this article.   Typically a few times in any given year the Washington Court of Appeals upholds the dismissal of a handful of personal injury cases because of a failure to bring the case prior to the expiration of the statute of […]
    Seattle Personal Injury Lawyer
  • Family Jet Ski Doctrine?
    Our firm was not involved in the case described in this article.   A boat driver was injured when jet skiers cut off his boat and he had to make an abrupt maneuver to avoid hitting one of the jet skis. As a result a passenger in the boat fell on the driver. The driver […]
    Seattle Personal Injury Lawyer
  • Medical Malpractice Case Dismissed on Basketball Analogy
    Our law firm did not participate in the lawsuit described in this article. Many personal injury cases that are dismissed are dismissed because of a failure to initiate the lawsuit prior to the running of the statute of limitations.  Of dismissals upheld on appeal many, if not most, were dismissed for the same reason. In […]
    Seattle Personal Injury Lawyer
  • Tax Day Deadly
    According to a recent study the rate of auto accident fatalities is measurably higher than normal on tax day.[1]   The researches looked at 30 years of data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and determined that there is a six percent increase in roadway fatalities on tax day.   According to an article […]
    Seattle Personal Injury Lawyer
  • Slip and Fall Liability is Far From Automatic
    Many believe that a business is automatically responsible if someone falls in their business and is injured.  This is not so. In fact, slip and fall cases are among the most difficult for the injured party to seek compensation. The Court of Appeals today posted its decision in a slip and fall case. Our firm […]
    Seattle Personal Injury Lawyer