BNSF Ry. Co. v. Clark

• Decision Date: 31 January 2019
• Docket Number: No. 95015-6,95015-6
• Citation: 434 P.3d 50,192 Wash.2d 832
• Parties: BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, Respondent, v. Thomas B. CLARK, MD, Pierce County Chief Medical Examiner, and Pierce County Medical Examiner, Appellants.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

192 Wash.2d 832

434 P.3d 50

BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, Respondent,

v.Thomas B. CLARK, MD, Pierce County Chief Medical Examiner, and Pierce County Medical Examiner, Appellants.

No. 95015-6

Supreme Court of Washington.

Argued November 8, 2018

Filed JANUARY 31, 2019

Stephen D. Trinen, Pierce County Prosecutors Office, 955 Tacoma Ave. S Ste. 301, Tacoma, WA, 98402-2160, for Appellants.

Michael Eliott Chait, Montgomery Scarp, P.L.L.C., 1218 3rd Ave. Ste. 2400, Seattle, WA, 98101-3017, Tom Montgomery, Montgomery Scarp, PLLC, 1218 3rd Ave. Fl. 25, Seattle, WA, 98101-3097, for Respondent.

John Scott Blonien, Washington Association of County Officials, 206 10th Ave. Se, Olympia, WA, 98501-1311, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington Association of Coroners and Medical Examiners (WACME).

FAIRHURST, C.J.

¶ 1 This case involves a practice that dates back to our earliest days as a territory—the coroner’s inquest. Although we now typically use experts to determine the cause of an unnatural death, historically we relied on the verdict of a coroner’s inquest jury. The parties before us ask how a coroner today may invoke the statutory authority that accompanies an inquest.

¶ 2 This case arose after Thomas B. Clark, MD, the Pierce County medical examiner (ME),¹ attempted to subpoena a video held by BNSF Railway Company of a fatal train-pedestrian collision. The parties dispute both whether Dr. Clark properly began a coroner’s inquest and the extent of the subpoena power granted by the applicable statute. We are asked to determine whether Dr. Clark exceeded his authority in issuing the subpoena. We hold that because Dr. Clark never began an inquest, he did not have authority to issue the subpoena. We affirm the issuance of a writ of prohibition by the trial court. We also provide guidance as to the scope of the subpoena power, as this issue is likely to recur.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 3 On February 5, 2017, a BNSF train was traveling through Puyallup, Washington, during heavy snow. R.S.² was standing on the tracks. According to witnesses at the scene, the train blew its whistle, but R.S. was struck and killed. Witnesses disagree about whether R.S. intentionally stayed on the tracks.

¶ 4 The train was equipped with a video camera that recorded the incident. The video was secured by the BNSF evidence preservation team and remains in the possession of BNSF today. After the death, Puyallup Police Department officers reviewed the video at the BNSF offices.

¶ 5 Dr. Clark then contacted BNSF to request a copy of the video to conduct a death investigation. Dr. Clark believes that if he views the video, he must maintain a copy of the video to comply with his obligations under the public record laws. MEs are obligated to keep death investigation records confidential. RCW 68.50.105(1).

¶ 6 BNSF informed Dr. Clark that it will retain the video for 40 years but will not release physical copies of the video because of concerns about the video being leaked. Instead, BNSF offered to show the video to Dr. Clark at any time, as many times as he would like to view it, and brought the video to the ME’s office. No one at the ME’s office viewed the video.

¶ 7 On March 14, 2017, Dr. Clark sent a memorandum to the Pierce County Superior Court administrator. The memorandum read as follows:

Pursuant to RCW 36.24.020, please be advised that I am opening an inquest concerning the February 5, 2017 death of [R.S.] in Puyallup, Washington.

Until further notice, however, Superior Court is not requested to provide persons to serve as a jury of inquest, nor to schedule a courtroom or related services, because my office is still gathering evidence concerning this matter. You will be advised when the status changes.

Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 143. Dr. Clark has stated that it is now and always has been his intention to hold an inquest in this matter.

¶ 8 Dr. Clark then issued an inquest subpoena to BNSF, demanding the production of "[a]ll photographs, film or video" depicting the "events 5 minutes before, during and 5 minutes after" the collision. CP at 145. The subpoena bore cause number 2017-0326 and ordered BNSF to produce the evidence to the ME on or before March 31, 2017. BNSF was unable to find a case with this number on the Pierce County Superior Court’s website and refused to comply with the subpoena.

¶ 9 BNSF sought a writ of mandamus to command Dr. Clark to withdraw the subpoena and a writ of prohibition to prevent him from enforcing the subpoena. BNSF argued that the memorandum to the court administrator was insufficient to convene an inquest and that, even if it was sufficient, the subpoena power granted by the statute allows subpoenas only for testimony and not for documents. The Pierce County Superior Court denied the writ of mandamus but entered a writ of prohibition requiring Dr. Clark to withdraw or not enforce the subpoena. Dr. Clark petitioned for direct review, which we granted.

II. ANALYSIS

¶ 10 Coroners' inquests are governed by chapter 36.24 RCW. RCW 36.24.020 states that if a coroner decides to conduct an inquest, he or she "shall notify the superior court to provide persons to serve as a jury of inquest." We hold that this statute requires a coroner to request a jury before an inquest can begin. We also hold that a coroner has the power to issue a subpoena only once he or she has requested a jury. Because Dr. Clark did not request a jury from superior court, he never convened an inquest and did not have authority to issue a subpoena. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by issuing a writ of prohibition, and we affirm.

¶ 11 Dr. Clark has made it clear that he intends to call an inquest jury and issue a new subpoena in this matter if this court affirms. In the interests of judicial economy, we explain that RCW 36.24.050 grants the power to subpoena this video but that the subpoena is returnable only to the inquest jury, not the coroner’s office.

A. Inquests and a coroner’s subpoena power

1. Standard of review

¶ 12 Statutory interpretation "is a question of law reviewed de novo." State v . James-Buhl, 190 Wash.2d 470, 474, 415 P.3d 234 (2018). "Statutory interpretation begins with the statute’s plain meaning." Id. "Plain meaning is ‘discerned from the ordinary meaning of the language at issue, the context of the statute in which that provision is found, related provisions, and the statutory scheme as a whole.’ " Id. (quoting State v . Engel , 166 Wash.2d 572, 578, 210 P.3d 1007 (2009) ). If the statute is ambiguous, we apply "principles of statutory construction, legislative history, and relevant case law to assist us in discerning legislative intent." Cockle v . Dep't of Labor & Indus., 142 Wash.2d 801, 808, 16 P.3d 583 (2001).

2. Coroners must request a jury to begin an inquest

¶ 13 We first hold that a coroner’s inquest begins under the statute when the coroner requests a jury from superior court. Because Dr. Clark specifically told the superior court not to provide a jury, he did not begin an inquest.

¶ 14 A coroner’s inquest is a proceeding in which a jury, instead of the coroner, determines the cause of death of an individual. "[T]he purpose of a coroner’s inquest is to determine who died, what was the cause of death, and what were the circumstances surrounding the death, including the identification of any actors who may be criminally liable for the death." Carrick v. Locke, 125 Wash.2d 129, 133, 882 P.2d 173 (1994). If the coroner holds an inquest, then it is "the jury that decides the matter," not the coroner. Thompson v . Wilson, 142 Wash. App. 803, 818, 175 P.3d 1149 (2008).

¶ 15 Coroners' inquests are governed by chapter 36.24 RCW. Under RCW 36.24.020, a coroner may generally hold an inquest if a death appears to be unnatural. The statute is clear as to how a coroner may invoke the inquest authority: "[t]he coroner in the county where an inquest is to be convened pursuant to this chapter shall notify the superior court to provide persons to serve as a jury of inquest to hear all the evidence concerning the death and to inquire into and render a true verdict on the cause of death." RCW 36.24.020. This sentence discusses the county "where an inquest is to be convened." Id. By using the future tense, the statute indicates that it is discussing what must occur before an inquest begins. The statute explicitly states that the coroner "shall notify the superior court to provide persons to serve as a jury of inquest ." Id. Therefore, the coroner must request a jury in order to begin an inquest. See State v . Krall, 125 Wash.2d 146, 149, 881 P.2d 1040 (1994) (stating "the general rule that ‘shall’ is presumptively mandatory").

¶ 16 Even if the language were not clear, the legislative history suggests the same result. Chapter 36.24 RCW "dates back virtually unchanged to the 1854 territorial laws of Washington." Carrick, 125 Wash.2d at 137-38, 882 P.2d 173. When it was originally adopted by the first legislative assembly of the Territory of Washington, it stated that when the coroner learns of an unnatural death, "he shall go to the place where the body is, and forthwith summon six good and lawful persons, qualified by law to serve as jurors, to appear before him forthwith, at the place where the body of the deceased is, to inquire into the cause of the death." LAWS OF 1854, § 3, at 436. In 1953, the chapter was amended to make inquests permissive rather than mandatory. At that time, this statute was changed to read, "The coroner shall summon six good and lawful persons to serve as jurors and to hear all the evidence concerning the death and to inquire into and render a true verdict on the cause of death." LAWS OF 1953, ch. 188, § 3. In 1988, the legislature amended the statute again to create uniformity in the way all kinds of jurors are selected, summoned, and compensated. LAWS OF 1988, ch. 188, § 1. The legislature amended the statute by replacing the "summon six good and lawful persons" language with the current "notify the superior court to provide...