 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Molvik v. Bihler10/10/2005
man's vehicle, Loreman then became 'aware of a motor revving up and observed a car come racing down the center turn lane to pass all of the backed up traffic.' A jury could reasonably find from this evidence that Bihler was passing the vehicles in the westbound lanes, not commencing a left turn. Such a determination could be viewed as negligence in light of the statutory restrictions on the use of the lane.
In short, this is a case that involves more than just speed that merely brought the two cars together at the same time, as in Channel v. Mills. Rather, there are other genuine issues of material fact that arise that only a jury may determine. Summary judgment of dismissal was not appropriate.
Molvik makes additional arguments why the trial court improperly dismissed this case. Among those arguments is the assertion that Bihler violated other statutes governing rules of the road. Molvik also argues that the doctrine of deception supports the reversal of the trial court's summary judgment order.
Because we have resolved this appeal on the basis that Channel v. Mills does not support summary judgment, we conclude it is unnecessary for us to address these other arguments.
We reverse the summary judgment of dismissal and remand for trial.
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.
|
|