Seattle Attorneys Blog

Washington Defense Summary Judgment Denied Despite No Evidence of Vehicle Damage

February 25, 2018 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Injuries can result from even minor automobile accidents. Washington car accident attorneys know that defendants are likely to challenge causation in such cases, and they may even challenge whether a collision even occurred. Documentation of the accident and the injury is extremely important, as a recent Washington appeal case shows.

The plaintiff sued the defendant, alleging he was injured in an automobile accident. According to the plaintiff, the defendant’s vehicle crossed the center line, and the mirror of the defendant’s car struck the mirror of the plaintiff’s car.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no evidence the “alleged accident” caused the plaintiff’s injuries. She admitted her vehicle crossed the yellow line and “passed closely by” the plaintiff’s car, but she denied hitting the plaintiff’s mirror. She submitted a repair estimate from her insurer, stating there was “no damage” to her vehicle and including photographs taken by the insurance investigator.

Inherited Property Considered Separate Property in Washington Divorce

February 6, 2018 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Property acquired during a marriage is presumed to be community property, but Washington property division attorneys know there are exceptions to that rule. Property that one spouse inherits or receives as a gift is presumed to be that spouse’s separate property. A Washington appeals court recently considered whether inherited property in another country became community property when the husband claimed to have paid taxes and bought out other heirs with community funds.

The couple married in 1985 and separated in 2014. The wife had inherited property in Peru that had been in her name since the 1990s. The husband argued he had built it up and bought out the other heirs. He said he had worked for one of the heirs to buy the property. He also argued that he paid $200 per year in property taxes.

The trial court found the property in Peru was the wife’s separate property by inheritance. The husband appealed, arguing the trial court had mischaracterized the property in Peru and therefore divided the property inequitably.

Driving on Neutral Area Between Ramp and Highway Lane is a Violation of Washington Law

February 6, 2018 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Washington criminal defense attorneys know that the validity of a traffic stop can have a significant effect on a resulting criminal case. A finding that the traffic stop was improper can result in the exclusion of evidence found during the stop. One defendant sought to have evidence suppressed due to a stop she argued was improper in a recent case.

The defendant was pulled over after a trooper saw her vehicle cross over the “neutral area” between the entrance ramp and the highway. The “neutral area” is the paved triangular space between the ramp and the lane of the highway. The neutral area was marked by white lines on both sides. The defendant was arrested for driving on a suspended license and other misdemeanors.

The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing she was stopped without cause. The trial court denied her motion. The trial court found the defendant violated RCW 46.61.670 by “driving with wheels off roadway” when she merged across the neutral area. The defendant was ultimately convicted by a jury of several misdemeanors.

Deferred Disposition Records May Be Sealed Prior to Juvenile’s 18th Birthday

January 26, 2018 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Criminal charges can have lasting negative effects. In many cases involving a juvenile defendant, those effects can be prevented through sealing the record. Washington criminal defense attorneys know that sealing the record prior to the juvenile’s 18th birthday may help prevent negative effects as the young person applies to colleges, but the state sometimes objects to the timing of a record being sealed.

In a recent case, the state appealed the sealing of a juvenile’s deferred disposition record. The juvenile defendant was charged with taking a motor vehicle without permission in the second degree and theft in the third degree. The trial court granted her a deferred disposition. She complied with the conditions of the deferral and the court vacated her conviction and dismissed the case with prejudice.

The court granted the defendant’s request to seal her juvenile record, and the state appealed. The state argued the trial court could not seal the record until the juvenile turned 18.

Cross-Examination of Minors in Washington Domestic Violence Protection Order Proceedings

January 26, 2018 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Domestic violence protection orders are designed to protect people from violence and abuse. Although the process is intended to be as simple and easy as it can be, Washington civil protection order attorneys understand that it can be difficult for everyone involved, especially children. It can be hard for children to talk about what has happened. The Washington Supreme Court has recently clarified that there is not a due process right to cross-examine a minor in every protection order proceeding, but there may be such a right in some cases.

In this case, the 14-year-old daughter had taken an overdose of prescription medication in November 2014, partly to avoid visiting her father. She told a social worker her father had been physically and verbally abusive. She had told her counselor her father often called her names. She stated that her father had “trie[d] to suffocate her.” She said he had been doing this for years. She said he put her under pillows and lay on them, which made her feel like she was suffocating and caused her to panic.

The mother sought a domestic violence protection order on behalf of herself and her children. Her petition stated that her daughter harmed herself because of her fear of visiting her father and because of his history of domestic violence against them.

Expert Witnesses in Washington Premises Liability Cases

January 5, 2018 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Personal injury cases often hinge on why and how the injury occurred. Although the victim and other eyewitnesses can testify to what happened, Washington personal injury attorneys know that an expert is often needed to explain how and why the incident happened. An expert may only testify within the area of his or her qualifications, however. Furthermore, the expert’s opinions must have an adequate foundation. The court has discretion in determining whether an expert may testify.

A Washington appeals court recently considered whether an expert was qualified in the area of his opinions and whether he laid an adequate foundation for those opinions. The plaintiff was injured when the chair in which he was sitting on the deck of the defendant pizza restaurant broke where the arm attached to the seat.

The assistant manager on duty at the time examined the arms to ensure they were stable when setting up the deck. He had only identified two chairs as being unacceptable in the past 11 years. He was not aware of any other incidents when chairs at the restaurant broke.

Contempt for Claiming Tax Exemption Against Court Order in Washington Child Custody Case

January 5, 2018 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Tax exemptions can be a contentious issue in custody cases. Washington child custody attorneys know that the allocation of tax exemptions can have a significant financial impact on the parties.

A recent Washington appeals court decision addressed a case in which the mother claimed the tax exemption for her younger child in two years despite the court’s order allocating the exemption to her former husband in those years. The order in effect at the time split the exemptions for the two children between the parents as long as the exemption existed for the older child. When there was no longer an exemption for the older child, the exemption for the younger child would alternate.

Under the order, the father had the right to the exemption in 2012, but both parties claimed it. Consequently, the father was audited and had to pay the IRS more than $2,000. He moved to have the mother held in contempt and asked the court to require the mother to sign a dependency exemption waiver for 2012 and 2014. The mother argued she claimed the exemption because the father had not paid his share of the child’s medical expenses.

Defense of Property and Washington No-Contact Orders

January 1, 2018 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Property disputes, property damage, or outright theft sometimes occur following a romantic breakup or a fight between romantic partners. While it is understandable for a person to want to retrieve their property, trying to get the property back in violation of a no-contact order could result in criminal charges. Washington civil protection order attorneys know that the theft or property damage may not provide a successful defense to those charges.

A Washington appeals court recently reviewed a case in which the defendant raised a defense of property defense surrounding the violation of a no-contact order. A domestic violence no-contact order prevented the defendant from contacting a woman he had previously dated for several years.

According to the defendant, he was loading boxes from his son’s garage in his car. He left his cell phone in the car, which had a broken window. He saw someone walking down the street but could not tell who it was. When he went back to his car, he found his cell phone and other items were gone.

Washington Escalator Owners and Operators Are Common Carriers

December 26, 2017 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Many escalators are used each day, and they generally function as expected. They require appropriate maintenance and service to do so, however. When they are riding an escalator, people can be seriously injured. Washington premises liability attorneys know that an owner that fails to properly maintain escalator equipment may be liable for the resulting injuries. In fact, in Washington, the owner or operator of an escalator has the heightened duty of care of a common carrier. A Washington appeals court recently considered a case in which the court dismissed a personal injury case involving an escalator.

The plaintiffs were injured when an escalator step jammed. The escalator was in a mall and right outside a department store. Witnesses stated they heard a screeching noise. The steps then began piling up, and the escalator collapsed on itself. The escalator’s fail-safe mechanisms did not activate to stop the escalator.

The plaintiffs sued the department store owner and the owners of the mall and escalator. The department store contracted with an elevator maintenance company for service and maintenance of the escalator.

“Underemployment” and Washington Child Support

December 26, 2017 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

New parents face difficult decisions regarding health care. Sometimes, the best option for the family is for one parent to limit his or her work schedule to care for the child. Washington child support attorneys know, however, that when a couple divorces, this issue can become contentious. The court must decide how much income to impute to the spouse who is not working full-time. A Washington appeals court faced this issue in a recent case, which was further complicated by the fact that one of the children has special needs.

The couple had three children under the age of five when they separated. The wife works part-time and nets less than $2,200 per month. Her husband nets more than twice as much. The court found she would net around $3,500 if she worked full-time.

Working part-time allows the mother to care for the youngest child. The child has a genetic disorder that causes a number of medical conditions, and the court noted his special needs will increase over time.