 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pereira v. Cocoa Investments11/14/2005
Eduardo Pereira and others used an appliance dolly rented from Eastside Car and Truck Rentals to move an old bathtub. After the tub fell and injured his hand, Pereira sued the rental company for damages. The trial court dismissed Pereira's products liability claim on summary judgment. Pereira appeals, arguing that summary judgment was improperly granted. We disagree, and affirm.
Bryce and Melissa Hein, having remodeled their bathroom, decided to donate the old bathtub to a local charity. After renting a small truck and a two-wheeled appliance dolly, or hand truck, from Eastside Car and Truck Rentals, a subsidiary of Cocoa Investments, Inc., the Heins enlisted the help of Melissa's brother-in-law, Eduardo Pereira, and Bryce's brother, John Hein, to move the bathtub. The three men maneuvered the five-foot bathtub onto the dolly and wheeled it up a ramp into the rental truck. As the tub was being lowered into the bed of the truck, it fell an inch or so, injuring Pereira's hand.
Approximately two years later, Pereira filed a lawsuit against Cocoa Investments, Inc. (Eastside) based on a product liability claim. In moving for summary judgment, Eastside argued that it owed no duty to Pereira and was not the proximate cause of his injuries. The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment in favor of Eastside without stating specific reasons. This appeal followed.
We are asked to consider whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Eastside. Applying the standard used for reviewing an order granting summary judgment, we conclude the evidence submitted by Pereira was insufficient to defeat Eastside's motion for summary judgment.
This court reviews an order for summary judgment de novo. We affirm a grant of summary judgment only when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Factual issues may be decided on summary judgment 'when reasonable minds could reach but one conclusion regarding the material facts.' 'More than speculation or mere possibility is required to successfully oppose summary judgment.'
Pereira contends that Eastside was liable for his injuries under chapter 7.72 RCW. Under that chapter, a product seller is liable to the claimant if the claimant's harm was proximately caused by '{t}he negligence of such product seller.' To prevail in his product liability claim, Pereira must establish that Eastside was a 'product seller' and that Eastside's negligence proximately caused his injury. The parties do not dispute that Eastside was a 'product seller' under chapter 7.72 RCW.
Pereira contends that issues of material fact exist as to whether Eastside was negligent for providing a dolly that was incapable of safely moving the bathtub. Thus, Pereira argues, this matter should be reversed and remanded for trial. We disagree.
To establish that Eastside was negligent, Pereira must show a duty, breach, causation, and damages. 'Whether a duty exists is a question of law that we review de novo, while breach and proximate cause are generally questions for the trier of fact.'
Pereira contends Eastside was negligent for providing an 'inadequate' dolly. While it is true that Melissa Hein stated in her deposition that she contacted Eastside and reserved a 'heavy duty' device to move the bathtub, nothing supports Pereira's assertion that the dolly was incapable of safely moving the bathtub. The dolly was clearly sturdy enough to haul the bathtub into the rental truck without a hitch. Pereira's injury occurred w
Page 1 2 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|