Car Accident

Washington Court Discusses Parental Immunity and Proportionate Liability in Personal Injury Appeal

April 20, 2016 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

In a recent personal injury case, the Court of Appeals of Washington decided issues involving parental immunity and allocation of fault in a negligence claim. In Smelser v. Paul (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 4, 2016), the defendant was visiting a friend with two young sons who were playing in the yard. As the defendant was leaving the driveway, she backed up her truck before turning to go forward. As she started forward, she hit one of the boys with her truck, causing him serious injuries.

The plaintiffs brought a negligence lawsuit against the defendant for the injuries of the boy she hit, as well as for emotional harm to his brother. The defendant responded with an affirmative defense that the father was also negligent in causing the alleged injuries. The trial court subsequently granted the defendant’s motion to have the fault allocated against all the plaintiffs who caused the injuries, including the boys’ father. After a trial, the jury found that the negligence of both the defendant and the father equally caused the boy’s physical injuries, but neither negligently caused his brother’s emotional harm. On appeal, the father contended that he was entitled to parental immunity, and he argued that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to allocate fault.

Washington’s tort reform statute provides for proportionate liability, which requires the fact-finder to allocate the percentage of fault attributable to multiple parties responsible for a plaintiff’s injuries. Specifically, RCW 4.22.070 lists the parties whose fault shall be determined, including parties immune from liability to the claimant, with an exception for those with immunity pursuant to the worker’s compensation act.

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 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.

Washington Appeals Court Examines Jury Award in Car Accident Case, Affirms Judge’s Grant of Additur

September 25, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

In a newly issued opinion, the Washington Court of Appeals discussed the issue of jury awards in personal injury claims and under what circumstances they may be overturned or altered. In Nelson v. Erickson, the plaintiff brought a negligence claim against a driver who rear-ended him. The case was initially transferred to mandatory arbitration pursuant to Chapter 7.06 RCW. The arbitrator awarded the plaintiff medical damages, out-of-pocket expenses, general damages for pain and suffering, and attorney’s fees and costs. The defendant then requested a Mandatory Arbitration Rule trial de novo, and a jury trial was held.

Before the trial, the defendant admitted liability for the car accident, and the parties stipulated that the plaintiff incurred $9,361 in medical expenses. During the three-day trial, the plaintiff put forth evidence of the medical treatments and expenses he had incurred and would continue to require as a result of the chronic pain suffered from the accident. The jury returned a verdict awarding the stipulated medical expenses, past medical expenses, and past non-economic damages, as well as future medical expenses to treat his chronic pain, but it failed to award the plaintiff any future damages for pain and suffering.