 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Critchlow v. Winterroth11/5/2002
Robert Critchlow filed two personal injury actions arising from two separate car accidents. The first accident involved defendants, Jamie Winterroth and Pamela Bean. The second accident involved defendants Sylvia Abbott and Stan Ruggles (Ms. Abbott). The trial court granted Ms. Bean's motion for summary judgment. The trial court later consolidated the Abbott matter into the Winterroth matter, which resulted in an earlier trial date for the Abbott matter. Mr. Critchlow then settled with Ms. Winterroth. But Mr. Critchlow was not ready to proceed on the Abbott matter on the date of trial. The trial court then granted Ms. Abbott's motion to dismiss with prejudice. Mr. Critchlow appeals the summary judgment in favor of Ms. Bean and the dismissal order in favor of Ms. Abbott. Finding no genuine issues of material fact raising an inference of negligence on the part of Ms. Bean, we affirm summary judgment in her favor. And, finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of the Abbott matter.
FACTS
A. Critchlow v. Bean
In June 1999, Mr. Critchlow, an attorney representing himself on appeal, filed a personal injury lawsuit against Ms. Bean and Ms. Winterroth in connection with a June 1996 three-vehicle accident. The accident occurred when Ms. Winterroth rear-ended Ms. Bean's stationary automobile, which then rear-ended Mr. Critchlow's stationary vehicle.
Ms. Bean moved for summary judgment, contending Mr. Critchlow had offered no specific facts to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to Ms. Bean's alleged liability. Ms. Bean partly supported her motion with Mr. Critchlow's deposition testimony.
In his response memorandum, Mr. Critchlow quoted a portion of his deposition testimony to support his contentions. He also relied on his deposition testimony at the summary judgment hearing. Mr. Critchlow presented no evidence of his own.
The trial court granted Ms. Bean's summary judgment motion on February 10, 2000. In its notation order, the trial court noted a CR 30(b)(2) objection Mr. Critchlow made regarding the use of his deposition testimony. The verbatim record of the summary judgment hearing contains no reference to such an objection.
The Winterroth matter was set for trial on December 11, 2000.
B. Critchlow v. Abbott
In 2000, Mr. Critchlow filed a personal injury suit against Ms. Abbott and Mr. Ruggles in connection with a 1997 three-car accident. Ms. Abbott admitted negligence but denied Mr. Critchlow's damage claim. The Abbott matter was set for trial on June 18, 2001.
On November 17, 2000, Mr. Critchlow, moved the trial court to consolidate the Bean and Abbott cases before the judge presiding over the June 18, 2001 trial, contending in part the issue of indivisible injuries arising from the two accidents justified consolidation.
On November 27, 2000, Ms. Abbott also moved the trial court to consolidate the cases, but noted she was ready to go to trial on December 11, 2000. Ms. Abbott argued there was 'absolutely no reason to continue the trial date on this case to a later point in time than December 11, 2000.' Clerk's Papers (CP) at 36.
The trial court granted the motion to consolidate on Ms. Abbott's terms, thus setting the trial on December 11, 2000. The trial court specifically denied Mr. Critchlow's motion to consolidate the Winterroth case into the Abbott case, which would have resulted in a trial date of June 18, 2001.
On December 11, Mr. Critchlow filed an affidavit of prejudice against the trial judge. The matter was immediately transferred to another judge. The new judge learned Mr. Critchlow had
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|