 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hiner v. Bridgestone/Firestone Inc.6/17/1999
was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Petitioner responds that, even if the court erred, Respondent did not perfect her appeal of the trial court's summary dismissal of her claim because her notice of appeal did not refer to the order dismissing her claim under the CPA, but that she now attempts to assign error to that dismissal in her briefs before this Court. Petitioner argues that Respondent's CPA claim is outside the scope of this appeal under Rule of Appellate Procedure (RAP) 2.4(b).
Under RAP 2.4(a) the appellate court will review "the decision or parts of the decision designated in the notice of appeal . . . ." A summary dismissal order is a "part of the decision" ultimately rendered in the case. The "{p}urpose of a notice of appeal is to notify the adverse party that an appeal is intended." The final Judgement in this case includes the interlocutory order dismissing Respondent's claim under the CPA. RAP 1.2(a) states "These rules will be liberally interpreted to promote Justice and facilitate the decision of cases on the merits . . . . "
An appellate court may exercise its discretion in considering a case on its merits despite a technical flaw in compliance with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. "This discretion, moreover, should normally be exercised unless there are compelling reasons not to do so." Although Respondent's purported appeal could be considered properly before this Court, we nevertheless decline to consider this assignment of error because she has not shown any compelling reason for the Court to go beyond the questions raised in the petition for review which we granted to Petitioner Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The Court of Appeals reversed Judgement granted as a matter of law to Petitioner Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. by the Walla Walla County Superior Court in this case in which Respondent Julia K. Hiner sued for damages under the Washington Product Liability Act (PLA), but affirmed dismissal by the trial court of Petitioner's affirmative defense of entity liability. The Court of Appeals concluded Respondent had provided sufficient evidence to present a prima facie case under the PLA and that the affirmative defense of entity liability in a product liability claim was limited to manufacturers and product sellers.
Under the PLA, Respondent Hiner must establish proximate cause and must show that, but for the absence of warnings on her Bridgestone/Firestone tires of the dangers of mounting studded snow tires only on the front wheels of a front-wheel drive vehicle, the accident would not have occurred. Proximate causation requires proof of both cause in fact and legal causation. There is not sufficient evidence in the record to establish cause in fact.
The plain language of the contributory fault statute does not limit apportioning fault only to other manufacturers and product sellers in a product liability case. The statutory definition of "fault" in RCW 4.22.015 is sufficiently broad to include other parties who may be neither manufacturers nor product sellers.
The Court of Appeals upheld dismissal by the trial court of Respondent's claim under the Washington CPA. That issue is not before this Court under the petition for review granted to Petitioner Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.
We reverse that portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals which reversed the decision of the Walla Walla County Superior Court granting Judgement as a matter of law to Petitioner Bridgestone/Firestone; and also reverse that portion of the decision which affirmed dismissal of Petitioner's affirmative defense of entity liability.
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.
|
|