 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Karch v. King County5/2/2005
Jonah Karch appeals the final judgment entered against him in his action against King County. Karch sued the county after he was injured while dumping garbage at a solid waste transfer facility. He contends the trial court erred by allowing the jury to consider the county's assumption of the risk defense. But substantial evidence in the record establishes that Karch subjectively knew of the hazards that caused his injuries and voluntarily chose to proceed anyway. Because this is enough evidence to submit the defense to a jury, and because that evidence is sufficient to support the verdict, we affirm.
FACTS
Until a disabling back injury forced his retirement in 1978, Jonah Karch had worked as a truck driver for the City of Seattle Engineering Department, a job which required him to make frequent trips to solid waste transfer facilities. In January 1997, when he was 69 years old, Karch went to the Renton Solid Waste Transfer Station to dump household trash. That transfer station has a drop of approximately 12 feet between the dumping platform and the trailer below. Three horizontal cables separate the platform from the drop.
Karch backed his pickup truck into one of the dumping stalls, opened the tailgate, and stepped up into the back of the truck. He then attempted to unload a student organ, which was approximately two and one-half feet long, two feet high, and one and one-half feet wide and weighed 60-70 pounds. Unable to lift the entire organ, Karch propped its back end on the top cable separating the platform from the trailer below. Karch then stood in the back of his truck and lifted the front end. He testified that he hoped the cable would act as a fulcrum, but that once the organ was on top of the cable, he noticed the cable was loose and he determined that it would not work. He nevertheless swung the organ back and forth on the cable several times, and finally gave it one big push. With that last push, Karch lost control and fell into the trailer below. He lost consciousness and fractured his nose and neck.
Karch sued King County for negligence, alleging that it failed to maintain the facility in a reasonably safe manner, warn of the dangers associated with dumping refuse, notify patrons of the dangers associated with dumping refuse over loose cables, and provide disability accommodations. In its answer, the county asserted contributory negligence and assumption of the risk defenses. The county also moved unsuccessfully for summary judgment.
After a four-day trial in March 2004, Karch moved for a directed verdict and to exclude the county's assumption of the risk defense. The court denied the motions, and a jury entered a special verdict finding that Karch assumed the risk by attempting to unload the organ the way he did. On April 29, 2004, the trial court entered a final judgment dismissing the case with prejudice. Karch appeals.
DISCUSSION
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence to Support Assumption of the Risk Defense
Traditionally, the assumption of the risk doctrine has four facets: (1) express assumption of risk; (2) implied primary assumption of risk; (3) implied reasonable assumption of risk; and (4) implied unreasonable assumption of risk. Only the second facet, implied primary assumption of risk, is pertinent here. Implied primary assumption of risk, which we will refer to as 'assumption of the risk,' arises when a plaintiff impliedly consents to relieve a defendant of its duty to protect the plaintiff from specific known and appreciated risks. If a plaintiff impliedly consented before the accident or injury to negate a duty the defendant otherwise would have owed him, the defendant has no dut
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.
|
|