 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Johnston v. City of Seattle5/24/1999
Douglas L. Johnston filed a claim for damages with the City of Seattle and filed a personal injury action against the City one day before the statute of limitations was set to expire. The City moved for summary Judgement dismissal of the personal injury action, contending that Johnston failed to wait 60 days after filing his claim before he commenced action as required by Seattle Municipal Code 5.24.005 and RCW 4.96.020. In response, Johnson maintained that SMC 5.24.005, which states that a claimant wait 60 days after filing a claim before commencing legal action unless the statute of limitations will expire, exempted him from the 60-day waiting period. The trial court granted the City's motion for summary Judgement, and Johnston appeals.
RCW 4.96.020 tolls the statute of limitations for the 60-day waiting period. As a result, Johnston's statute of limitations was not set to expire until 60 days after he filed his claim with the City. Consequently, applying SMC 5.24.005 and RCW 4.96.020 together, Johnston was required to wait 60 days before commencing his legal action. Accordingly, the trial court properly dismissed Johnston's action and we affirm.
FACTS
On October 14, 1994, Douglas L. Johnston fell in a hole on a downtown Seattle street and fractured his foot. On October 13, 1997, one day before the statute of limitations was set to expire, Johnston filed a claim against the City of Seattle and commenced a cause of action against the City in King County Superior Court for damages caused by the City's alleged negligence. In the City's answer to Johnston's complaint on November 12, 1997, it alleged, inter alia, that the complaint was barred by Johnston's failure to comply with RCW 4.96.020, the Washington statute governing tortious conduct of local governmental entities, and SMC 5.24.005, the Seattle Municipal Code's "Claims for damages" provision. On December 19, 1997, the City moved for summary Judgement. The trial court granted the City's motion and Johnston appeals.
DISCUSSION
Johnston contends that SMC 5.24.005 alone, not RCW 4.96.020, controls the procedures for filing a claim and commencing legal action against the City for its allegedly tortious conduct. We disagree.
Summary Judgement 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 Judgement 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 Judgement order, an appellate court engages in the same inquiry as the trial court." Id. RCW 4.96.020, the Washington statute governing the tortious conduct of local government entities, provides procedures for claims for damages against local entities. This statute requires that a claimant wait 60 days after filing a claim before commencing legal action, and tolls the statute of limitations for the 60-day waiting period:
"(1) The provisions of this section apply to claims for damages against all local governmental entities."
"(2) All claims for damages against any such entity for damages shall be presented to and filed with the governing body thereof within the applicable period of limitations within which an action must be commenced."
"(3) All claims for damages arising out of tortious conduct must locate and describe the conduct and circumstanc
Page 1 2 3 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|