 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Clark-Ianniciello v. Mann9/17/2001
The sole issue in this appeal is whether there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether Gail Mann drove a car that collided with Pennie Clark-Ianniciello's Jeep in a hit and run accident. We hold there was not and affirm the trial court's ruling granting Mann's motion for summary judgment and dismissing Clark-Ianniciello's suit against Mann.
FACTS
Between 6:00 and 6:30 a.m. the morning of February 10, 1996, Pennie Clark-Ianniciello was driving her Jeep Cherokee toward Seatac Airport. She was in the far right lane of the three-lane road when a car suddenly veered from the left lane and struck the left side of her Jeep. Clark- Ianniciello immediately stopped on the right shoulder. According to Clark- Ianniciello, the other car swerved back to the left, stopped momentarily on the left shoulder, and then drove off. Clark-Ianniciello could not describe the car but thought that it was about the same size as her Jeep.
Gail Mann was driving her Nissan pickup truck in the same area within fifteen to thirty minutes of Clark-Ianniciello's accident. She was driving in the left lane when she hit a patch of ice, heard a bang sound, and briefly left her lane. Mann did not see any cars in her immediate vicinity but pulled over to the right shoulder to investigate. She noticed a dent on the rear right side of her truck, but no damage to the front. Mann waited for about ten minutes, then after seeing no other cars stopped, she continued on. She later reported the incident to the police.
Clark-Ianniciello sued Mann for negligence, claiming that Mann's truck had collided with her Jeep. Mann moved for summary judgment arguing that Clark-Ianniciello could not prove that it was her truck that had collided with Clark-Ianniciello's Jeep. In support of the motion, Mann submitted her affidavit and deposition testimony describing her accident as outlined above and asserting that she had not hit another car. Mann also submitted Clark-Ianniciello's deposition and a police report containing her statement. In both, Clark-Ianniciello admitted she could not identify the car that hit her. Clark-Ianniciello also indicated that her Jeep and the unknown car had collided in a 'V' shape, with the right front potion of the unknown car striking the left side of her Jeep. To show that she could not have been involved in such a collision, Mann submitted photographs showing a dent only on the right rear side of her truck.
In response, Clark-Ianniciello argued that a jury could find that Mann had collided with her Jeep based on the timing and proximity of the two reported incidents as well as the damage to the two cars. She also submitted the affidavit of Devonna Defond, who worked at the collision center that repaired Mann's truck. Defond stated that repairs had been made to the right rear of Mann's truck and also to the 'right cab rocker.' The rocker is a panel beneath the cab door. Defond stated that the 'cab of {Mann's} vehicle is the forward portion of the vehicle.'
Mann replied with the affidavit of accident reconstructionist Vern Goodwin, who reviewed the photographs of Mann's truck, the police report, and Defond's declaration. Goodwin stated that the accident Clark- Ianniciello had described was 'not consistent with the damage to Defendant's vehicle. Plaintiff's vehicle had damage from the left front fender continuing through the rear side door. This damage could not have been caused by Defendant's vehicle impacting Plaintiff's vehicle in the manner described.' With regard to the rocker damage to Mann's truck, Goodwin averred that 'this kind of damage is not consistent with damage involving a side frontal impact or rear impact.' Goodwin opined that '{i}n comparing the
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.
|
|