Seattle Attorneys Blog

Holidays in Two-Home Families

October 31, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Whether it be because of divorce, children being born outside of marriage, or other non-traditional family structures, we have many clients with children whose parents and/or guardians are living in more than one home. This can be difficult for kids and families on typical days, but is especially difficult on holidays and other special occasions. Here we provide a few ideas for how to make the holidays a little better (and less stressful) for kids living in two-home families.

Alternative Dispute Resolution in Family Law Cases

October 25, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

In family law cases, people are often confused and worried about whether or not they have to have a trial. Many are nervous about testifying, the judge being mean, and/or having to sit across from the opposing party. Trials can be stressful, intimidating, and not conducive to a harmonious co-parenting relationship. Fortunately, there are other options for concluding a family law case that do not involve a trial. Here are a few ways that family law cases can be settled without the need for a trial: Continue reading

Washington Appeals Court Holds Denny’s Not Liable for Criminal Attack on Patron

October 21, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

In a recent opinion concerning premises liability, the Washington Court of Appeals analyzed the issue of business liability for injuries caused by one customer assaulting another customer. In Crill v. WRBF, Inc., No. 31912-1-III (Wash. Ct. App. Sept. 3, 2015), the plaintiff sued a Denny’s restaurant after she was struck on the back of the head by an intoxicated diner at 2:00 a.m. in the restaurant. After discovery was completed, the defendant moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court. The plaintiff appealed that decision. The Court of Appeals ultimately held that the restaurant had no duty to prevent the attack, since a lack of similar prior incidents rendered the assault unforeseeable.

The elements of a negligence action are: (1) the existence of a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) causation between the breach and the accident; and (4) quantifiable damages that were incurred. A defendant generally has no duty to prevent criminal acts by a third party, unless a special relationship exists between the victim and the defendant. A business owner, such as Denny’s, is deemed by law to have a special relationship with its business invitees, such as the Crill plaintiff, thus creating a duty to protect her from criminal conduct by third parties. The court must then determine whether the risk that caused the plaintiff’s injury was reasonably foreseeable to Denny’s.

Legal Costs and Family Law Cases

October 17, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

We have covered the issue of legal costs during family law cases on this blog before, but we think it is an important enough issue to merit further discussion. Each person has their own priorities and it is important that your family law attorney be willing to adjust their usual procedure to help you reach your objectives without ruining your financial future (or be honest about their inability to change their procedures enough to fit your budget and let you seek help elsewhere). Sometimes, keeping costs low during a family law proceeding is pretty high on a client’s list of priorities. Here are a few (more) ways to save on legal costs during your family law case: Continue reading

Washington Supreme Court Holding Limits Protection of Rule 3.1 in DUI Case

October 9, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The Washington Supreme Court recently published an opinion in the case of State v. Fedorov, addressing the issue of whether a police officer’s presence in the room where the defendant was speaking with his attorney violated CrR 3.1, the rule-based right to counsel. The defendant moved to suppress the results of a breath alcohol concentration (BAC) test based on an alleged violation of CrR 3.1. The lower courts denied the defendant’s motion, and the defendant appealed his subsequent conviction.

Under Washington law, when a person is taken into custody, he must be immediately advised of his right to a lawyer and the opportunity to consult with a lawyer without charge if he cannot pay for one. CrR 3.1(c)(1). At the earliest opportunity, a person in custody who desires a lawyer shall be provided access to a telephone, the number of the public defender or official responsible for assigning a lawyer, and any other means necessary to put the person in communication with a lawyer. CrR 3.1(c)(2). The Fedorov court further explained that unlike the Sixth Amendment right to counsel under the United States Constitution, CrR 3.1 is more limited and provides only the opportunity to speak to counsel, rather than requiring actual communication with an attorney.

Property Divided Upon Dissolution

September 30, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

As part of the dissolution of marriage process in Washington, according to RCW 26.09.080 “the court shall, without regard to misconduct, make such disposition of the property and the liabilities of the parties, either community or separate, as shall appear just and equitable after considering all relevant factors…” Prior to dividing property and liabilities, the court must identify what property exists. For the most part, it is the job of the parties and their lawyers to show the court what property needs to be divided. At times, the identification of property can be difficult. (It should be noted, while the courts will divide property if asked to do so, it is also an option for most couples to divide their own assets and liabilities without court intervention.) Below, we provide a few examples of property that is sometimes overlooked during the dissolution of marriage process. Continue reading

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.

Three Issues to Consider When Choosing an Attorney

September 22, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

When confronted with a legal issue, many people have to go through the process of choosing an attorney for the first time. Choosing the right attorney for the legal issue you face is an important decision. As attorneys, we understand the importance of choosing the right attorney for you and your case, and with that we provide these issues to consider when choosing an attorney: Continue reading

Washington Court Holds That Defendant’s Previous Conviction Elevates DUI to Felony Charge

September 15, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

In a recently published opinion, the Washington Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether a defendant’s prior Alford plea could elevate a subsequent driving under the influence (DUI) offense to a felony charge. In State v. Bird, 352 P.3d 215 (Wash. App. 2015), the state appealed the trial court’s decision dismissing the felony DUI charge against the defendant. The Court of Appeals agreed with the prosecution and reversed the trial court, holding that the defendant’s previous conviction for vehicular assault served as a predicate offense enabling the state to charge him with a felony DUI.

In 2009, the defendant entered an Alford plea to vehicular assault under all alternatives, which was accepted by the court. The defendant’s statement on the guilty plea acknowledged that he drove a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and caused substantial bodily harm to another individual. The court subsequently entered a felony judgment and sentence, finding the defendant guilty on a plea of “Vehicular Assault—All Alternatives,” with “DUI” handwritten over the charge. In 2013, the defendant was arrested after being stopped by police for erratic driving. The officers stated that the defendant was slurring his speech, had red eyes, and performed poorly on field sobriety tests. The defendant also blew a .138 on a portable breath test administered by the officers. Due to his 2009 vehicular assault conviction, the DUI was elevated to a felony offense.

Divorce and the Discovery Process: Five Areas of Focus

September 14, 2015 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

During a Washington State Divorce a divorcing spouse will have the ability to ask questions (through interrogatories or depositions), request documents, and ask for admissions from the other party (and third parties); this process is called the discovery process. Here are five areas that divorcing people should focus their attention on during the discovery process. Continue reading