Dominick v. Christensen
| Decision Date | 15 April 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 44083,44083 |
| Citation | 548 P.2d 541,87 Wn.2d 25 |
| Parties | Jack R. DOMINICK, Individually and as guardian ad litem of Craig Dominick, Appellant, v. Walter CHRISTENSEN and Jane Doe Christensen, his wife, Respondents. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
J. K. Hallam, Aberdeen, for appellant.
Davies, Pearson, Anderson, Seinfeld, Gadbow, Hayes & Johnson, John C. Kouklis, Tacoma, for respondents.
This is an appeal from an order entered by the Grays Harbor County Superior Court granting defendants' motion for a summary judgment. The order, insofar as relevant, denied the plaintiff father's claim, as guardian ad litem of Craig Dominick, for damages arising out of an injury to his son caused by defendants' dog.
The facts are uncontroverted. On May 19, 1974, Craig Dominick accompanied his mother and other relatives on a social visit to the defendants' residence which was located outside the city limits of Montesano, Washington. During the visit, Craig asked to go outside to play. He was observed petting defendants' dog in their backyard. Subsequently, he was bitten by the dog.
The sole issue raised on this appeal is what is meant by the word 'lawfully' as used in RCW 16.08.040, which reads:
The owner of any dog which shall bite any person while such person is in or on a public place or Lawfully in or on a private place including the property of the owner of such dog, shall be liable for such damages as may be suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness.
(Italics ours.) RCW 16.08.050 defines the term 'lawfully' to mean:
A person is Lawfully upon the private property of such owner within the meaning of RCW 16.08.040 . . . when he is on such property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him by the laws of the state of Washington or of the United States or the ordinances of any municipality in which such property is situated.
(Italics ours.) Plaintiff contends that the term 'lawfully,' given its ordinary meaning, was intended to include persons required by law to be on private property as well as persons not prohibited from being on private property.
This contention is best resolved by considering it in light of the rules which guide this court in its interpretation of statutory language. The primary objective of statutory construction is to try to carry out the intent of the legislature. Anderson v. O'Brien, 84 Wash.2d 64, 67, 524 P.2d 390 (1974). An expression of one thing in a statute excludes others not expressed. State v. Sponburgh, 84 Wash.2d 203, 212, 525 P.2d 238 (1974). Words of a statute, Unless otherwise defined, must be given their usual and ordinary meaning. Department of Revenue v. Hoppe, 82 Wash.2d 549, 552, 512 P.2d 1094 (1973). The court will not read into a statute matters which are not there nor modify a statute by construction. King County v. Seattle, 70 Wash.2d 988, 991, 425 P.2d 887 (1967).
In its definition, the legislature did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Covenant Church of Seattle, Wash. v. City of Seattle
...definition provided in the ordinance, words of an ordinance are to be given their usual and ordinary meaning. Dominick v. Christensen, 87 Wash.2d 25, 27, 548 P.2d 541 (1976). Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1971) at page 1323 defines liturgy as "a rite or series of rites, obse......
-
Segura v. Cabrera
...[meaning] which [is] not there.” Nationwide Ins. v. Williams, 71 Wash.App. 336, 342, 858 P.2d 516 (1993) (citing Dominick v. Christensen, 87 Wash.2d 25, 27, 548 P.2d 541 (1976)). Washington law teaches that “actual damages” is a familiar term that includes emotional distress damages. Elling......
-
Johnson v. Ryan
...an “issue of public concern.” Undefined statutory terms must be given their usual and ordinary meaning. Dominick v. Christensen, 87 Wash.2d 25, 27, 548 P.2d 541 (1976) ; Nationwide Ins. v. Williams, 71 Wash.App. 336, 342, 858 P.2d 516 (1993).¶ 111 Black's Law Dictionary does not define eith......
-
State v. Williams
...as to federal officers. The decision by the legislature should be honored; the recordings should be admitted. See Dominick v. Christensen, 87 Wash.2d 25, 548 P.2d 541 (1976). I BRACHTENBACH and STAFFORD, JJ., concur. 1 In State v. Mayes, 20 Wash.App. 184, 579 P.2d 999 (1978), rev. denied, 9......
-
Roberts v. Johnson-a Welcome Change Tainted
...in accordance with the intent of the legislature) (Rosellini, J., writing for the court); Dominick v. Christensen, 87 Wash. 2d 25, 548 P.2d 541 (1976) (the primary objective of statutory construction is to carry out the intent of the legislature) (Rosellini, J., concurring); Hartman v. Wash......
-
The Washington Forest Practices Act: When Is Compliance With Sepa Required?
...enacts a statutory definition, such definition controls the interpretation of the defined term. Dominick v. Christensen, 87 Wash. 2d 25, 548 P.2d 541 (1976). The Washington Supreme Court also presumes that when a definition expressly includes certain matters, other matters not expressed are......