 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Medina v. Public Utility District3/15/2001
Alirio Medina was injured after being struck by a Benton County PUD No. 1 truck. Mr. Medina and his wife filed a claim for personal injuries with the PUD and 57 days later they filed a lawsuit with the superior court. The case was dismissed on summary judgment because the Medinas failed to wait 60 days before filing their lawsuit, as required under RCW 4.96.020. They appeal, contending that the court erred by dismissing their lawsuit because they substantially complied with the statute. Additionally, they contend that the equitable doctrines of waiver, estoppel, or laches prevent the PUD from asserting their noncompliance with RCW 4.96.020. Finally, they challenge the constitutionality of chapter 4.96 RCW, asserting that it violates equal protection and due process.
We affirm the dismissal of the Medinas' lawsuit. We conclude that RCW 4.96.020 requires strict compliance with its filing procedures. We find no merit in the Medinas' equitable arguments based upon the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, or laches. We conclude that chapter 4.96 RCW is constitutional because it does not violate equal protection or due process.
FACTS
Alirio Medina was injured in a car accident on January 9, 1995. The truck that hit Mr. Medina was owned by Benton County Public Utility District No. 1 and was driven by a PUD employee.
On January 7, 1998, Mr. Medina and his wife, Ernestina Fuentes, filed a claim with Benton County PUD, pursuant to RCW 4.96.020, seeking recovery for Mr. Medina's personal injuries and Ms. Fuentes's loss of consortium. The claim was denied by the PUD on January 13, 1998.
Fifty-seven days after filing the claim with the PUD, Mr. Medina and Ms. Fuentes filed a summons and complaint in Benton County Superior Court. The PUD filed an answer on July 13, 1998. Nine days later, the PUD filed an amended answer. The amended answer raised the defense that Mr. Medina failed to wait the 60 days required by RCW 4.96.020(4).
Benton County PUD moved for summary judgment, based on Mr. Medina's failure to comply with RCW 4.96.020. The court orally indicated its intent to deny the motion. The PUD filed a motion for reconsideration and, after additional briefing by the parties, the court granted summary judgment and dismissed the claim. Mr. Medina appeals.
ANALYSIS
Summary Judgment.
Summary judgment is appropriate 'if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.' CR 56(c). 'The motion will be granted, after considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, only if reasonable persons could reach but one conclusion.' Reynolds v. Hicks, 134 Wn.2d 491, 495, 951 P.2d 761 (1998). 'When reviewing a summary judgment order, an appellate court engages in the same inquiry as the trial court.' Id.
Chapter 4.96 RCW. The Washington Constitution provides '{t}he legislature shall direct by law, in what manner, and in what courts, suits may be brought against the state.' Const. art. II, sec. 26. RCW 4.96.010 was enacted to abolish the doctrine of sovereign immunity for the political subdivisions of the state. Daggs v. City of Seattle, 110 Wn.2d 49, 52, 750 P.2d 626 (1988). 'As a condition precedent to maintaining an action against a governmental entity, the statute requires the injured party to comply with statutory claim filing procedures.' Pirtle v. Spokane Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 81, 83 Wn. App. 304, 307, 921 P.2d 1084 (1996) (citing RCW 4.96.0
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|