Seattle Attorneys Blog

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.

Think You are Ready to File for Divorce? Issues to Consider

January 15, 2016 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

January is a busy time for family law attorneys. The stress of the holidays seems to make an already unhappy marriage even unhappier, and in January, people vow to never spend another holiday with their soon-to-be-former spouse. While we understand that this issue can feel very urgent, and sometimes it is, we also hope people consider how best to prepare their children, finances, and themselves for what is to come. Below please find some issues to consider before rushing to the courthouse to file your petition. Continue reading

Reminder for Parents Planning to Relocate

January 10, 2016 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Parents sharing a child’s residential time under a court order (like a residential schedule or parenting plan) should be aware of the requirements of the relocation provisions of RCW 26.09. That chapter of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) requires that under certain circumstances a residential parent relocating the child must give notice prior to the relocation. Parents are sometimes confused about what circumstances require them to provide such notice. Continue reading

Washington Appeals Court Finds for Plaintiff, Reverses Summary Judgment in Car Accident Case

January 7, 2016 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

In a recently published decision, the Washington Court of Appeals reviewed a case involving a plaintiff’s personal injury claim and the effect of his failure to amend his Chapter 13 bankruptcy schedules to include the claim. In Arp v. Riley (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2015), the superior court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment against the plaintiff on the basis of judicial estoppel. On appeal, the Washington court ultimately reversed and remanded that decision, allowing the plaintiff to proceed with his claim.

The Arp plaintiff had filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in 2008. After he paid off his Chapter 13 debt, the bankruptcy court closed his case in 2012. In October 2010, however, the plaintiff sustained serious injuries when an SUV rear-ended his stopped car. He suffered physical injuries as well as mental and emotional problems, including periodic memory loss. The plaintiff filed a personal injury action against the driver and the company for which the driver was working at the time. The defendants subsequently moved for summary judgment, contending that the plaintiff was barred from bringing his claim by judicial estoppel, since he did not report the claim to the bankruptcy trustee, and that he lacked standing. The trial court agreed, finding that the plaintiff’s personal injury claim is considered an asset of the bankruptcy estate, and the plaintiff had a duty to disclose the claim as such in his bankruptcy action.

Alternative Family Structures and Family Law Issues

December 23, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

We spent a lot of time on this blog discussing Washington families dealing with marital dissolutions and life after a divorce, but what about families where the parents were never married and/or never intend to marry each other? How does Washington family law affect these families? This post discusses some of the issues that arise in families where marriage is not intended, desired, or included. Continue reading

Washington Court of Appeals Reviews Conviction of No-Contact Order Violation

December 17, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The Washington Court of Appeals recently reviewed a defendant’s conviction for violating a no-contact order, evaluating whether evidence should have been suppressed. In State v. Burks (Wash. Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2015), the police officer conducted a traffic stop of a vehicle for speeding. The police officer obtained the driver’s information and entered it into a search, which indicated that the driver was a protected party in a no-contact order. The police officer noticed that the description of the respondent in the no-contact order matched the defendant, who was riding as a passenger in the driver’s vehicle. The officer requested identification from the defendant, which he did not have on him. The police officer returned to the computer in his vehicle and located a photograph of the respondent in the no-contact order, which matched the defendant. The officer then arrested the defendant for violating the no-contact order.

The defendant was charged with one count of a felony violation of a court order with a special allegation of domestic violence. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the traffic stop, arguing that it was an illegal invasion of privacy pursuant to the Washington Constitution. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the police officer had a reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant was violating the no-contact order, there was an independent reason to request the defendant’s identification, and the traffic stop was lawful. The trial court convicted the defendant as charged, and the defendant appealed on the basis that the trial court erred in allowing the evidence of the traffic stop.

What Should I Wear to Court?

December 10, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Many of our family law clients are dealing with their first court case of their lives. They are nervous and intimidated about what the court process will be like, what they should wear, how they will be expected to act, and what they should say. We hope with this article to avoid one of the common sources of anxiety: what to wear on your day(s) in court. While you should take the advice of your attorney, there are some basic rules of thumb that apply to most court appearances: Continue reading

Washington Court Reviews Expert Testimony of Industry Custom in Premises Liability Case

December 9, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The Washington Court of Appeals recently addressed the issue of whether a trial court properly admitted expert industry custom testimony in a premises liability case. In Ponce v. Mountaineers (Wash. Ct. App. Nov. 2, 2015), the plaintiff’s son died in a sledding accident at the defendant’s recreational facility. The family had parked along the side of a road and was walking from their car up the hill on the access trail, when their son abruptly sat on his sled. The sled traveled down the hill and onto the road, where the son was struck and killed by a passing vehicle. His parents brought a personal injury action, alleging that the defendant failed to exercise ordinary care by not maintaining a barrier at the base of its access path to prevent sledders from entering the roadway.

Both the plaintiff and the defendant presented an expert witness to testify as to the standard of care owed to the victim by the defendant. The plaintiff’s expert testified that the defendant should have installed a barrier between the access path and the road, and stated that by failing to do so, the defendant created a hazardous condition. The defendant’s expert testified that the access path was consistent with industry best practices. Before trial, the plaintiff moved to exclude testimony from the defendant’s winter recreation expert, arguing that he lacked a sufficient foundation. The trial court denied the motion. After the conclusion of the trial, the jury found in favor of the defendant. On appeal, the plaintiff contended that the trial court erred by allowing the expert testimony.