Subscribe in a reader


Issaquah Law Group - Injury Litigation Attorneys

TRUST: Personal injuries are personal. Which is why the attorneys at ILG treat every client and every case differently. Because they are different, and extremely personal. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built on trust. Trust that you will be heard. Trust that you will be protected. Trust that every effort will be made to see justice done in your case. The singular goal of every ILG attorney is to earn and preserve that trust.

EXPERIENCE: ILG attorneys have a broad base of litigation experience to draw on in all Federal and State courts from on-the-ground investigations to Supreme Court appeals and we bring this experience to bear on behalf of our clients in personal injury and wrongful death claims arising out of motor vehicle accidents, bus versus pedestrian accidents, defective and dangerous products, medical malpractice, slip/trip and fall accidents, and catastrophic losses due to fire.

LOCATION: We are located on the Eastside in Issaquah, convenient to Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Renton, Sammamish and North Bend. However, we provide legal services in King County, Pierce County, Snohomish County and throughout the entire state of Washington.

In addition, through The Amateur Law Professor Blog and LinkedIn postings, we share pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Supreme Court, as well as the pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Courts of Appeal so that our clients can be as update to date on cutting legal issues as we are.

WA Supreme Court: Definition of Latent in Recreational Use Statute Does Not Include Easily Photographable Objects

Jewels v. City of Bellingham

In the recent Washington Supreme Court opinion in Steven Jewels v. City of Bellingham, the Court interpreted and applied the Recreational Use Statute, RCW 4.24.210.  In short, the statute states that landowners who open their land to the public for recreational purposes, free of charge, are generally not liable for unintentional injuries to such users. However, the statute creates an exception where an injured party may overcome this immunity by showing either: (1) a fee for the use of the land [was] charged; (2) the injuries were intentionally inflicted; or (3) the injuries were sustained by reason of a known dangerous artificial latent condition for which no warning signs were posted. Davis v. State, 144 Wn.2d 612, 616 (citing RCW 4.24.210(1), (3)).  When applying the third exception, all four elements (known, dangerous, artificial, latent) modify the word “condition” and must be present in the injury-causing condition for liability to attach to the landowner.

In determining whether an unpainted portion of a speed bump (otherwise painted yellow) which acted as a water diverter was “latent” under the statute, the Court clarified the line between a latent and an obvious defect:

[W]e derive the following principles on latency: if an ordinary recreational user standing near the injury-causing condition could see it by observation, without the need to uncover or manipulate the surrounding area, the condition is obvious (not latent) as a matter of law. The latency of the condition is not based on the particular activity the recreational user is engaged in or the particular user's experience with the area from earlier visits or expertise in the specific recreational activity. . . .

[T]he fact that the condition can be easily photographed is an acknowledgment that the condition is obvious.

As a result, the Court upheld summary judgment dismissal of the plaintiff’s cause of action against the City.

Subscribe in a reader

Copyright 2014-2018 by Issaquah Law Group, PLLC. Powered by Squarespace. Background image by jakeliefer.