Seattle Attorneys Blog

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.

Excited Utterances May Be Admissible in Washington Even If Partly Untrue

December 7, 2017 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Many people are aware of the general rule that hearsay is inadmissible. Washington criminal defense attorneys know that a court may admit hearsay evidence if it meets one of a number of exceptions to that general rule. A Washington appeals court recently reviewed a case involving the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule.

The defendant’s girlfriend had been drinking during the evening of the incident. She left the home for a while after an argument, but she subsequently returned. About 45 minutes later, she called her 16-year-old daughter. According to the daughter, the woman was crying and hysterical and spoke at a high volume. The daughter testified she had trouble understanding her mother. The woman described an assault and told her daughter she had been shot.

The girl gave the phone to her father. The woman’s ex-husband testified that she was hysterical, crying, and very scared. She described an assault and told him the defendant had shot her. The ex-husband called the police.

Parallel Domestic Violence Protection Order and Criminal Proceedings in Washington

November 30, 2017 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

It is not uncommon for a civil protection order case to occur at the same time as a criminal case. When the issues in the cases are similar or related, the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights can be implicated. Washington civil protection order attorneys understand that a defendant is not automatically entitled to a continuance in the civil protection order proceeding, however. The court should balance the interests to determine whether the case should be continued, as done in a recent case.

The husband was charged with multiple counts of rape of a child, involving his wife’s daughter. The wife reported that her husband had tried to get her to lie in the criminal case, and he was arrested for tampering with a witness.

The wife filed for a domestic violence protection order (DVPO), stating she was afraid her husband would retaliate. The court issued a temporary protection order and notice of a hearing. The husband requested a continuance of the hearing due to the pending criminal matter.

Washington Supreme Court Rules on State Delay in Disclosing Toxicology Witness

November 22, 2017 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Washington DUI defense attorneys often have to fight vigorously to ensure they get information from the State. In DUI cases, the State sometimes fails to name the toxicologist who will testify until very close to the trial. In one particularly egregious case, the prosecution provided a list of potential witnesses and waited until the morning of the trial to identify the actual witness. We discussed this case following the Court of Appeals decision, and the Washington Supreme Court has recently reviewed it.

The defendant was charged with driving under the influence. Five months before the trial, the State disclosed a list of nine toxicologists, indicating one of them would testify. Two weeks before trial, the defendant filed a supplemental discovery request, seeking identification of the testifying witness. Three days before trial, the defendant moved to dismiss or suppress the testimony. On the day before the trial, the State narrowed the list to three names. It finally identified which toxicologist would testify on the morning of the trial.

The defendant moved to suppress the testimony based on the late disclosure. The trial court denied the motion, finding no actual prejudice to the defense. The court also noted that the practice of providing a list rather than disclosing a specific name was caused by underfunding of crime labs rather than mismanagement.

Right of First Refusal in Washington Family Law Matters

November 21, 2017 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Child care is often a contentious issue in Washington family law cases. A parent may object to the child care arrangements made by the other parent, not want a specific person to watch the child, or want the opportunity to take the child when the other parent is unavailable. Sometimes, a parenting plan addresses this issue by including a right of first refusal. The right of first refusal requires that the other parent be given the opportunity to care for the child when the parent with residential time is unavailable. A right of first refusal is generally only used when the parents have been cooperative and shown an ability to co-parent. As a recent case shows, the parenting plan should provide some parameters and details about how the right works.

The child in this case was born after a brief dating relationship between the mother and the father. The mother received no assistance from the father during her pregnancy or the first 15 months of the child’s life.

When a temporary parenting plan was entered in 2009, the court-appointed guardian ad litem (GAL) noted that some of the father’s behavior was consistent with that shown by perpetrators of domestic violence. The GAL noted there were no allegations of physical aggression toward the mother or child, but they expressed concern that the father’s behavior may have a negative effect on the child’s emotional well-being or even escalate to physical violence.

Independent Basis for Washington Officer Requesting I.D. for Suspicion of Violating Protection Order

October 27, 2017 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The Washington Constitution protects people from unlawful searches and seizures. Article 1, section 7 has been interpreted by Washington courts to prohibit police from requesting identification of a passenger unless there is an independent basis for the request. An independent basis exists if the officer can identify specific and articulable facts that, when taken with rational inferences, justify the request. Washington criminal defense attorneys know that an unlawful search or seizure can occur in any kind of case, including a violation of a protection order.

In a recent case, a Washington appeals court considered whether an officer had an independent basis to ask the identity of a passenger when the driver was protected by a no-contact order. The defendant’s arrest arose from an incident in which an officer stopped a vehicle for expired registration and failure to transfer title. A man got out of the vehicle before the officer approached. The officer learned that the driver of the vehicle had several warrants. He also learned she was the protected party in a domestic violence no-contact order. The officer determined the description of the restrained party matched the passenger who had gotten out of the vehicle. He found that the passenger was in the portable outdoor restroom of a nearby gas station. The door to the restroom indicated it was unlocked and unoccupied. He knocked and opened the door, finding the passenger inside.

The passenger gave the officer a name and date of birth that did not match the restrained party. They then returned to the patrol vehicle, where the officer saw pictures of the man bearing the name given and the restrained party. The officer determined that the passenger was the restrained party and arrested him for a violation of the no-contact order.