 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Martin v. City of Seattle2/14/2005
The personal representatives of the Estate of Rufus Martin brought this wrongful death action against Alaska Cargo Transport (ACT) and the City of Seattle after Mr. Martin accidentally drove a piece of heavy equipment off the stern of ACT's barge and into the Duwamish River, where he drowned. His personal representatives claimed that ACT failed to turn its barge over to Jore Marine Services (Jore), Rufus Martin's stevedore employer, in a condition that allowed expert and experienced longshoremen exercising reasonable care to perform barge cleaning with reasonable safety, as required by federal maritime law. Following a bench trial on this cause of action, the court entered a defense verdict and granted judgment in favor of ACT. The personal representatives argue on appeal that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard in determining whether ACT turned its barge over to Jore in reasonably safe condition. But the trial court applied the correct legal standard, and it is apparent to us that the plaintiffs' disagreements with the trial court really go to the findings of fact. But the findings of fact, which are largely unchallenged in any event, are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the verdict and judgment in favor of ACT.
The personal representatives also claimed that the City of Seattle was liable for Martin's death, based on negligent failure to establish adequate response time for underwater dive team rescues. The trial court dismissed this cause of action on summary judgment. As a preliminary procedural matter, the personal representatives contend that the trial court erred by making the summary judgment ruling sua sponte, giving them no opportunity to provide additional evidence in support of their claim against the City. But the ruling was not sua sponte. It was made in response to a motion for reconsideration of the trial court's initial ruling denying summary judgment to the City that had been pending for a number of months. The court had deferred ruling on that motion until discovery could be completed. The discovery cutoff date had passed before the trial court granted reconsideration and reversed its earlier summary judgment ruling. Moreover, before making the ruling, the court engaged in extensive colloquies with plaintiffs' counsel, treating the colloquies as offers of proof regarding the nature of the plaintiffs' claims, the nature of their evidence, and their contentions regarding liability-creating conduct of the City. The procedure was imminently fair to the plaintiffs, and the record permits us to engage in de novo review of the summary judgment proceeding. Accordingly, we reject this contention of procedural error, without further analysis.
Substantively, the personal representatives challenge the following rulings by the trial court: (1) that the doctrine of discretionary immunity bars the claim that the City was negligent for failing to site a dive rescue team near enough to the Duwamish River industrial area to have any realistic chance of saving Rufus Martin after he went into the water; (2) that the City did not owe a duty of care to Rufus Martin under the special relationship exception to the public duty doctrine; and (3) that the City did not owe a duty of care to Rufus Martin under the negligent rescue exception to the public duty doctrine. Because there were no genuine issues of material fact that precluded summary judgment, and the City was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to the City.
FACTS
During the summer of 2000, ACT, a marine transportation company, and Jore Marine, a stevedoring company, both operated out of Port of Seattle's Terminal 115 on the wes
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|