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.

In Washington, “[t]he legal duty owed by a landowner to a person entering the [landowner’s] premises depends on whether the entrant falls under the common law category of a trespasser, licensee, or invitee.”[2]

The difference between the duty of care owed to licensees and that owed to invitees is that, with respect to licensees, a landowner has no duty to discover dangerous conditions and the provision of a warning about a dangerous condition or the taking of corrective action is sufficient to fulfill his or her duty. This is in contrast to the affirmative duty owed to invitees to ascertain dangerous conditions and to take corrective measures to protect the personal safety of invitees.

The Court of Appeals followed precedent holding that firefighters are invitees and applied this to police.[3]

[1] McDonald v. Highline School District #401, No. 63751-7-I (June 21, 2010).

[2] Iwai v. State, 129 Wn.2d 84, 90–91, 915 P.2d 1089 (1996) (citing Younce v. Ferguson, 106 Wn.2d 658, 662, 724 P.2d 991 (1986)); accord Musci v. Graoch Assocs. Ltd. P’ship No.12, 144 Wn.2d 847, 854–55, 31 P.3d 684 (2001) (citing Degel, 129 Wn.2d at 49).

[3] Strong v. Seattle Stevedore Co., 1 Wn. App.898, 902, 466 P.2d 545 (1970).

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.