Seattle Attorneys Blog

Washington Supreme Court Finds in Favor of Plaintiff in Injury Claim Against King County

March 29, 2016 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The Washington Supreme Court recently decided an appeal involving a car accident in the case of Wuthrich v. King Cty. (Jan. 28, 2016). The plaintiff was riding a motorcycle when another motorist pulled out in front of him at an intersection. The plaintiff brought an action against the County, alleging that it was liable for his injuries because overgrown blackberry bushes obstructed the motorist’s view of traffic at the intersection. The lower court granted summary judgment in favor of the County, and the plaintiff appealed.

In order to recover on a common law claim of negligence, a plaintiff must establish: (1) the existence of a duty to the plaintiff, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) a resulting injury, and (4) the breach was the proximate cause of the injury. In Washington, a municipality has a duty to maintain its roadways in a reasonably safe condition for ordinary travel. This duty is not confined to the asphalt. If a wall of roadside vegetation makes the roadway unsafe by blocking a driver’s view of oncoming traffic at an intersection, the municipality has a duty to take reasonable steps to address it.

Washington Appeals Court Holds No Exigent Circumstances Justify Warrantless Blood Test in Marijuana DUI Case

March 25, 2016 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

In an important decision, the Court of Appeals of Washington addressed the issue of whether a warrantless blood test violated the rights of a defendant charged with driving under the influence (DUI) of marijuana. In City of Seattle v. Pearson (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 29, 2016), the defendant struck a pedestrian with her car. The defendant suffered from health conditions for which she was authorized to consume medical marijuana and told police she had smoked earlier in the day. After the defendant performed field sobriety tests, the police officer arrested the defendant on suspicion of driving under the influence. The officer then transported the defendant to a hospital for a blood draw without her consent or a warrant, two hours after the accident had occurred. The test determined a THC concentration of approximately 20 nanograms.

Both the U.S. and Washington State constitutions provide protection against unreasonable searches, including the intrusion into a person’s body to draw blood. Absent a recognized exception, a warrantless blood draw is unlawful. An exception may exist in the case of exigent circumstances, in instances where acquiring a warrant is not realistic because the delay that occurs in the pursuit of securing a warrant would adversely affect factors such as an officer’s safety, enable escape, or allow for the destruction of evidence. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the blood test after finding that exigent circumstances existed to justify the warrantless blood test.

Issues that May Arise in Dissolution of Marriage When One Spouse Owns a Business

March 23, 2016 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Dissolving a marriage can be difficult even in relatively simple, straight-forward circumstances. Things can become much more difficult in divorces that involve a business owned by one or both spouses. The end of a marriage can also mean the end of the business. Ending the business is not always in the best interest of the divorcing parties. Below are a few issues for consideration by parties seeking to dissolve their marriage in Washington, when one or both spouses own a business. Continue reading

Summer Schedule Notice Requirements in Parenting Plans

March 11, 2016 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

For many families the spring is an exciting time. During spring, the weather gets warmer, the flowers bloom, the baseball season begins, and families plan for their summer vacations. For families whose children’s residential time is split between two unmarried parents, it is also often a time that the parenting plan requires parents to swap summer schedules. In many plans both parents submit their desired summer schedules and one parent has the prevailing preference for each year. Here are a few ideas that some families have found helpful when addressing notice for summer vacation schedules: Continue reading

Postsecondary Support

February 29, 2016 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

As many parents of adult children know, most children do not stop needing support (financial, mental, and emotional) when they turn eighteen or graduate from high school. Providing continued emotional or mental support is usually not a point of contention between parents. Whether to provide financial support can be a different story. When the parents of adult children are still married at the time the child reaches the age of majority, the parents usually decide together how much longer they will offer housing, pay for college, and otherwise financially support the child. When the parents are not married at the time the child turns eighteen or graduates (and the current child support order ends), there are often questions about whether to provide support (and how much support) for the adult child. There is also the question of who should contribute to the support.

Sometimes, unmarried parents request that the court determine whether and how much postsecondary support should be provided to the child. A parent must request postsecondary education contribution from the other parent prior to the current child support order ending (usually eighteen or when the child graduates from high school). If a request is made through court action, the court may decide to award post-secondary support, but it is not mandatory.

King County’s Parenting Seminar

February 27, 2016 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

In King County, Local Rule 13 requires parents of minor children (kids under 18) involved in many types of family law cases to attend a parenting seminar during the sixty days following the filing of a petition. As this is a part of many of the cases we handle at Blair & Kim, we hope to provide some information related to this seminar. Continue reading

Working with a Pro Se Party in Family Law Cases

February 14, 2016 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Family law clients are often surprised to hear that family law attorneys actually prefer to litigate or negotiate with a represented other party as opposed to a pro se other party (a.k.a. unrepresented party). This article discusses some of the potential pitfalls of working with unrepresented parties. Most of the pitfalls contribute to these types of cases taking more client and attorney resources than cases where both parties are represented.

Most of the time, pro se parties do not know all of the rules and procedures for this type of case. It is difficult to work with someone who does not know the court rules, applicable laws, and strict timelines that are part of our daily work as family law attorneys. Sometimes, we deal with pro se opposing parties that do not turn things in on time or otherwise confuse court rules and are given a pass by the commissioner or judge because they are pro se. This is frustrating to clients and attorneys alike. Continue reading

Washington Court Finds in Favor of Plaintiff in Premises Liability Case

February 3, 2016 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The Court of Appeals of Washington reviewed a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in a recent premises liability case, Gould v. N. Kitsap Bus. Park Mgmt., LLC (Wash. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2016). In Gould, the plaintiff was injured when she tripped over an unpainted wheel stop in a parking lot of a strip mall owned by the defendant. The plaintiff filed a personal injury action, alleging that the defendant was negligent because its wheel stop was not painted and did not contrast with the surrounding pavement. The trial court ruled in the plaintiff’s favor, and the defendant appealed.

To establish a claim for negligence in Washington, the plaintiff must show the existence of a duty owed, a breach of that duty, a resulting injury, and proximate cause between the breach and the injury. In cases of premises liability, the legal duty owed to the plaintiff by a landowner depends on whether the plaintiff is a trespasser, licensee, or invitee. A business invitee is a person who is invited to enter the property for a purpose connected to business dealings with the landowner.

In Gould, the appeals court found that the trial court’s findings of fact supported the conclusion that the plaintiff was a business invitee, since she was visiting for a business purpose and made a purchase at one of the stores in the defendant’s strip mall. Under Washington law, a defendant is liable for harm caused to invitees by a condition on the land only if the defendant (1) knows or should have known of the condition, (2) should know that the condition involves an unreasonable risk of harm to invitees, (3) should expect that the invitee will not realize the danger, and (4) fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger.

Circumstances When Litigation May Not Be The Best Route – Family Law

January 31, 2016 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

While it might be surprising to to read a law firm telling you about circumstances when you may not need an attorney or want to seek court action to respond to a difficulty in your life, it actually serves both the clients’ interests and an attorneys’ interests to consider when court action may not be necessary. The overriding rule is that if a client is going to spend more (time, energy, resources) than they stand to gain, it’s only worth litigating an issue if the principle is important enough that spending additional money on attorneys’ fees and legal costs is justified. Any potential litigation requires an attorney to do a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the potential benefit of litigation outweighs the potential risk and resources expended.

Washington Supreme Court Finds No Alternative Means to Commit DUI Under Prior Statute

January 20, 2016 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The Supreme Court of Washington issued a recent opinion in the case of State v. Sandholm (Wash. Dec. 3, 2015), interpreting the former version of the driving under the influence (DUI) statute, RCW 46.61.502, in order to determine the number of alternative means of committing an offense under the statute. In addition, the court analyzed former RCW 9.94A.525 to decide how offender scores for prior convictions are calculated.

In Sandholm, the defendant was pulled over while driving and ultimately charged with felony DUI, as a result of his prior DUI offenses within 10 years. At trial, the jury instructions presented two alternative statutory means to commit DUI: (1) that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or (2) that the defendant was under the combined influence of alcohol and drugs. The defendant appealed the verdict against him, arguing that the jury instruction was erroneous, since there was no evidence to support a conviction based on drug intoxication. The Court of Appeals agreed that the jury instruction was erroneous but affirmed the conviction, holding that the error was harmless. The defendant subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Pursuant to the Washington Constitution, criminal defendants have the right to a unanimous jury verdict. Nevertheless, in alternative means cases, in which the criminal offense can be committed in more than one way, jury unanimity is not required if each alternative means presented to the jury is supported by sufficient evidence. However, a conviction will not be affirmed if the evidence is insufficient to support one or more of the alternative means presented to the jury. Under the former DUI statute, a person is guilty of driving while under the influence if he or she has an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher, is under the influence of liquor or any drug, or is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor and any drug.