 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Molvik v. Bihler10/10/2005
JUDGES: Concurring: H Joseph Coleman Marlin Appelwick
UNPUBLISHED
At issue in this personal injury action that arises out of a two-car collision is whether excessive speed is the sole genuine issue of material fact. Because the rule stated in Channel v. Mills does not bar prosecution of the central claim, we reverse the summary dismissal of the action by Julie Molvik against Thomas and Jane Doe Bihler and remand for trial.
The auto accident occurred in the 2600 block of 196th Street in Lynnwood, Washington. The arterial highway at the location of the accident has two lanes westbound, two lanes eastbound, and a two-way left turn lane located in the center of the roadway.
Molvik's vehicle exited a parking lot on the north side of 196th Street and entered the arterial highway. Due to heavy traffic, the cars in the two westbound lanes had come to a stop. Drivers in those two lanes allowed space for Molvik's car to pass between their stopped vehicles in order to enter the two-way left turn lane of 196th Street.
Molvik had crossed the two westbound lanes of traffic and was turning left into the two-way left turn lane to proceed eastbound on 196th. As Molvik moved into the turn lane, Thomas Bihler's car, heading westbound in the turn lane, collided with Molvik's. There is conflicting evidence about how fast he was traveling.
Following impact, Molvik's vehicle came to rest in the turn lane. Bihler's vehicle spun out of control, crossed the oncoming eastbound lanes of traffic, continued over the curb and sidewalk, and crashed into a parked car. Bihler's car came to rest in the McDonald's parking lot on the south side of 196th Street.
It is undisputed that neither driver saw the other vehicle until the moment of impact in the turn lane.
Molvik commenced this personal injury action. Bihler moved for summary judgment. Evidence from Bihler, Molvik, and other witnesses to the accident was before the court, and the trial court dismissed the action. Molvik appeals.
PROXIMATE CAUSE
Molvik contends that the trial court erred in granting Bihler's summary judgment motion. We agree.
We may affirm an order granting summary judgment if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A material fact is one upon which the outcome of the litigation depends. We consider the facts submitted and all reasonable inferences from those facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Summary judgment is proper when reasonable minds could reach but one conclusion regarding the material facts. We review a summary judgment order de novo, conducting the same inquiry as the trial court.
The elements of a negligence claim include: (1) the existence of a duty to the plaintiff; (2) breach of that duty; and (3) injury to the plaintiff proximately caused by the defendant's breach. The existence of a duty is a question of law, but breach and proximate cause are generally questions of fact for the jury. '{I}f reasonable minds could not differ, these factual questions may be determined as a matter of law.'
The order granting summary judgment appears to have been based on the court's determination that 'there is no evidence that {Bihler} breached a legal duty owed to {Molvik}.' But the briefing on appeal and below focuses on the rule of Channel v. Mills. For this reason, we focus on that case and do not address duty.
Channel involved an intersection collision where the jury determined that the car driven by defendant Jonathon Mills entered the intersection on a green light and therefore was the 'f
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.
|
|