Diversified Industries Development Corp. v. Ripley, No. 42498

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Washington
Writing for the CourtHAMILTON; HALE
Citation514 P.2d 137,82 Wn.2d 811
Docket NumberNo. 42498
Decision Date27 September 1973
PartiesDIVERSIFIED INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent, v. R. Bruce RIPLEY et al., Appellants.

Page 811

82 Wn.2d 811
514 P.2d 137
DIVERSIFIED INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent,
v.
R. Bruce RIPLEY et al., Appellants.
No. 42498.
Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.
Sept. 27, 1973.

Davies, Pearson, Anderson, & Gadbow, Wayne J. Davies, Seattle, for appellants.

Horswill, Keller, Rohrback, Waldo & Moren, Burt Waldo, Seattle, for respondent.

Page 812

[514 P.2d 138] HAMILTON, Associate Justice.

This is a declaratory judgment proceeding. Respondent, Diversified Industries Development Corporation, the owner and lessor of the residential property here involved, initiated the action against appellants, Bruce and Doris Ripley, month-to-month tenants in the residential unit, and their liability insurer, Ohio Casualty Insurance Company. Respondent prayed for an adjudication of potential financial responsibility as between respondent and its insurer, and appellants, in connection with an accident and injuries occurring on the residential premises to a social guest of the Ripleys. Appellants appeal from an adverse judgment.

The facts are stipulated. Briefly, and so far as relevant to our disposition of the cause, they are as follows:

On June 1, 1969, Mr. and Mrs. Ripley rented a residence from respondent under a written month-to-month rental agreement. Employees of respondent, in preparing the premises for the Ripleys' occupancy, discovered that a wagon wheel mounted upon and cemented to a stone fence had fallen from its mounting. They replaced the wheel in its mounting but did not otherwise secure it to the fence. The Ripleys were not advised of this condition by respondent and did not otherwise know of it.

On July 19, 1969, Mr. and Mrs. Bradley Martin and their 4-year-old daughter were social guests of the Ripleys. During this visit, the wagon wheel became dislodged and fell upon the minor child thereby injuring her. The insurers of the respective parties, I.e., the Ripleys and respondent, under medical coverage provisions of each policy, made payments to the Martins, and their respective adjusters maintained contacts with the Martins until March, 1970, when the Martins moved to the state of Michigan. No further written claim, or demand, for or on behalf of the minor has been made; however, due to the age of the child, the statute of limitations will be tolled for an extended period of time. RCW 4.16.190.

The month-to-month rental agreement contained, among other provisions, the following:

Page 813

4. Tenant agrees . . . that Owner shall not be held liable for any damage to person or property of Tenant, his guests, or any member of his family, by reason of any condition of the premises, and agrees to hold Owner harmless from any claims for damage to persons or property asserted by any person whomsoever, arising out of condition of said premises or Tenant's occupancy.

Respondent alleged and contended that the foregoing provision of the rental agreement imposed responsibility for any claim of damages by or on behalf of the injured minor upon appellants, and that the continuing risk or hazard of such a claim, coupled with appellants' refusal to accept responsibility...

To continue reading

Request your trial
153 practice notes
  • City of Longview, Mun. Corp. v. Mike Wallin, an Individual, Bancams.Com, an Unknown Entity, Wa Campaign for Liberty, Non-Profit Corp., No. 43385–1–II.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • April 30, 2013
    ...” To–Ro Trade Shows, 144 Wash.2d at 411, 27 P.3d 1149 (quoting Diversified Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Ripley, 82 Wash.2d 811, 814–15, 514 P.2d 137 (1973)). A justiciable controversy requires “(1) ... an actual, present and existing dispute, or the mature seeds of one, as distinguished from a poss......
  • Asarco Inc. v. Department of Ecology, No. 69406-1.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • March 21, 2002
    ...v. City of Seattle, 114 Wash.2d 392, 398, 787 P.2d 1352 (1990) (quoting Diversified Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Ripley, 82 Wash.2d 811, 815, 514 P.2d 137 (1973))). Clearly, (4) is not present here, as this case is not developed sufficiently for this Court to render a decision which will conclude t......
  • Seattle School Dist. No. 1 of King County v. State, No. 44845
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • September 28, 1978
    ...is pointed out that there must be a "justiciable controversy" as defined in Diversified Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Ripley, 82 Wash.2d 811, 815, 514 P.2d 137, 139 (1) . . . an actual, present and existing dispute, or the mature seeds of one, as distinguished from a possible, dormant, hypothetical,......
  • Aji P. v. State, No. 80007-8-I
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • February 8, 2021
    ...Shows v. Collins, 144 Wash.2d 403, 411, 27 P.3d 1149 (2001) (quoting Diversified Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Ripley, 82 Wash.2d 811, 814-15, 514 P.2d 137 (1973) ). A justiciable controversy is one which presents"(1) ... an actual, present and existing dispute, or the mature seeds of one, as distin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
153 cases
  • City of Longview, Mun. Corp. v. Mike Wallin, an Individual, Bancams.Com, an Unknown Entity, Wa Campaign for Liberty, Non-Profit Corp., No. 43385–1–II.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • April 30, 2013
    ...” To–Ro Trade Shows, 144 Wash.2d at 411, 27 P.3d 1149 (quoting Diversified Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Ripley, 82 Wash.2d 811, 814–15, 514 P.2d 137 (1973)). A justiciable controversy requires “(1) ... an actual, present and existing dispute, or the mature seeds of one, as distinguished from a poss......
  • Asarco Inc. v. Department of Ecology, No. 69406-1.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • March 21, 2002
    ...v. City of Seattle, 114 Wash.2d 392, 398, 787 P.2d 1352 (1990) (quoting Diversified Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Ripley, 82 Wash.2d 811, 815, 514 P.2d 137 (1973))). Clearly, (4) is not present here, as this case is not developed sufficiently for this Court to render a decision which will conclude t......
  • Seattle School Dist. No. 1 of King County v. State, No. 44845
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • September 28, 1978
    ...out that there must be a "justiciable controversy" as defined in Diversified Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Ripley, 82 Wash.2d 811, 815, 514 P.2d 137, 139 (1) . . . an actual, present and existing dispute, or the mature seeds of one, as distinguished from a possible, dormant, hypothetical, ......
  • Aji P. v. State, No. 80007-8-I
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • February 8, 2021
    ...Shows v. Collins, 144 Wash.2d 403, 411, 27 P.3d 1149 (2001) (quoting Diversified Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Ripley, 82 Wash.2d 811, 814-15, 514 P.2d 137 (1973) ). A justiciable controversy is one which presents"(1) ... an actual, present and existing dispute, or the mature seeds of one, as d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT