Facts: Petitioner Tambra Curtis filed suit against respondent Jack Lein in the Superior Court for King County after she was injured when a dock located on property owned by Lein collapsed beneath her. As Lein had removed the dock prior to trial and it therefore could not be examined to determine the cause of the collapse, Curtis attempted to invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, asserting that although she could not demonstrate that the dock had collapsed due to negligent maintenance, a reasonable inference of negligence on Lein’s part could be drawn as a dock would not ordinarily collapse unless its owner had negligently maintained it. The trial court granted summary judgment to Lein and dismissed the case, ruling that res ipsa loquitur could not be invoked as a number of causes other than negligent maintenance could have been responsible for the collapse. Upon appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. Curtis appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s): May the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur be invoked in premises liability cases in which the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the respondent knew or should have known about a dangerous situation on their property?

Conclusion: Justice Stephens’ opinion for the Court reversed the Washington Court of Appeals and remanded the case, holding that although explanations for the collapse other than a discoverable defect existed, Curtis could nonetheless invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as the accident was of a type that would not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence, the dock was under Lein’s exclusive control, and it was uncontested that Curtis did not contribute in any way to the accident. Thus, Curtis could rely upon res ipsa loquitur to shift the burden of proof to Lein to demonstrate that the faulty condition of the dock was not due to a discoverable defect.

Docket No. 83307-9 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 62168-8)

Petitioner: Tambra Curtis

(Counsel: Jo-hanna Gladness Read)

Respondent: Jack Lein & Claire Lein

(Counsel: Kathleen Mary Thompson)

Briefs:

Argument: Thursday, July 1, 2010 9:00am

[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]

Decided: Thursday, September 16th, 2010

Prevailing Party: Tambra Curtis (Petitioner)

Vote: 9-0

Citation: Pending

Court: Madsen1 Court (2010-2011)

Madsen
(Concurs)

Johnson

Alexander

Sanders

Chambers

Owens

Fairhurst

Johnson

Stephens
(Majority)