Justia Washington Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

There was a catastrophic failure at the Spokane waste water treatment plant. One man was killed, and two others were severely injured. The survivors, including Respondent Larry Michaels, successfully sued Appellant CH2M Hill, the engineering firm that worked for the city at the time of the accident. The City of Spokane, as employer of Respondents, was immune from liability under the Industrial Insurance Act. All parties agreed that the City was negligent. The issue at trial was whether CH2M Hill was also negligent. On appeal to the Supreme Court, CH2M Hill challenged the trial judge's rulings on its liability as well as twenty-six other findings of fact. Of importance here was whether the City's immunity could be imputed to CH2M Hill under the same insurance act. The Supreme Court dissected all twenty-six points in its review, and concluded that CH2M Hill was not entitled to the same immunity as the City. The Court agreed with all rulings of the trial court. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision in the case.

Petitioner Maureen Blair was a long-haul trucker. In 2003, she slipped and fell on a gasoline spill at a truck stop operated by Respondent TA-Seattle East No. 176 (also known as Travelcenters of America). Petitioner and her husband brought suit against Travelcenters in 2006. From the onset, there were problems with her case. Her trial counsel had problems at the firm, and as a result, missed several key discovery deadlines, particularly one involving disclosure of Petitioner's proposed witness list. Travelcenters moved to strike the witness list. The trial court did not enter any findings, but it struck the witness list, and sanctioned Petitioner's counsel for subsequent untimely disclosures. Three days before trial, Travelcenters moved to dismiss the case because without witnesses, Petitioner could not prove her case. The trial court granted the motion, and Petitioner appealed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision. Petitioner challenged the propriety of the trial court's sanctions and for striking the witnesses, claiming that the court was required to make a finding for the record why it did what it did. The appellate court held that the trial court did not have to enumerate its reasons. But the Supreme Court disagreed. The Supreme Court held that the appellate court misread the case law governing this kind of matter, and vacated the sanction orders from the trial court, and reversed the order granting Travelcenter's motion to dismiss.