 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Padilla v. Merchandising Inventives4/4/2005
Alice Padilla suffered injuries on September 6, 1999, when a display suspended from hooks in the ceiling of a retail craft store fell on her head. She initially sued the retail store. Almost four years after the accident, she sued the manufacturer and retailer of the ceiling hooks, Merchandising Inventives and Display Supply. The trial court dismissed both defendants based on the three-year statute of limitations. Because Padilla's initial focus on the retail store as the cause of her injury should not have blinded her to other possible causes, the discovery rule does not help her and the trial court properly granted summary judgment.
When reviewing summary judgment, we engage in the same inquiry as the trial court. McDonald v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 119 Wn.2d 724, 730, 837 P.2d 1000 (1992). Summary judgment should be granted only when a reasonable person, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, could reach only one conclusion. Lamon v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 91 Wn.2d 345, 349, 588 P.2d 1346 (1979).
Alice Padilla was shopping for scrapbook supplies at the Ben Franklin Crafts, Inc. store in Redmond, Washington on September 6, 1999. A display suspended from hooks in the ceiling of the store fell and struck her on the right side of her head. According to her complaint, Padilla immediately informed store manager Phil Seaton of the incident.
Within weeks, Padilla retained counsel, who sent a notice of representation to the store manager. The letter requested insurance information and a response to whether Ben Franklin disputed liability. According to the declaration of counsel for Padilla, Ben Franklin accepted liability but disputed damages.
In January 2000, counsel for Padilla visited the Ben Franklin store and "was immediately struck by the fact that the whole place was packed with goods". Counsel "saw several displays like the one that fell" but "did not see the mechanism that held them up, because they were up so high." Counsel's view was that it would be premature to file suit before the permanent impact of Padilla's head injury could be known. Accordingly, Padilla did not file suit until March 19, 2002. She named Ben Franklin as the sole defendant and alleged a breach of the duty to provide and maintain safe premises for the benefit of customers. Her theory was that Ben Franklin personnel had overloaded the display.
Padilla obtained a default judgment against Ben Franklin on June 4, 2002 for failure to appear or answer. Counsel for Ben Franklin filed a notice of appearance on June 10. At the end of June, the parties stipulated and agreed to set aside the default. Padilla served Ben Franklin with interrogatories.
In October 2002, three years and one month after the accident, Ben Franklin answered Padilla's complaint. Ben Franklin raised the affirmative defense that Padilla's injuries and damages, if any, were caused or contributed to by Display Supply and Merchandising Inventives, Inc., respectively the seller and manufacturer of the ceiling hooks. At this point, Padilla began to investigate the role the hooks may have played in causing the display to fall. An engineering expert consulted by Padilla advised that the hooks showed "crazing" -- a microstructural breakdown in tensile strength -- indicating they had been overloaded. According to Padilla, the expert concluded the hooks themselves were not defective. Padilla filed a status report with the court in early April 2003 representing that "all parties" to the suit had "been named."
On April 22, 2003, Padilla deposed Ben Franklin store manager Phil Seaton. During this deposition, Padilla learned that Seaton, who had bo
Page 1 2 3 4 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|