Ertl v. State
| Decision Date | 06 April 1995 |
| Citation | 126 Wn.2d 1009,892 P.2d 1088 |
| Parties | Tibor Anthony Ertl v. State NO. 62423-2 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
To continue reading
Request your trial
5 cases
-
Degel v. Majestic Mobile Manor, Inc.
......at 523, 810 P.2d 1387. . Under the common law of this state a landowner's duty of care to persons on the land is governed by the entrant's common law status as an invitee, licensee or trespasser. Tincani, 124 Wash.2d at 128, 875 P.2d 621; Ertl v. Parks & Recreation Comm'n, 76 Wash.App. 110, 113, 882 P.2d 1185 (1994), review denied, 126 Wash.2d 1009, 892 P.2d 1088 (1995). The parties ......
-
McMann v. Benton County, Angeles Park Communities, Ltd.
...... A landowner owes invitees a duty to use ordinary care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Id. (citing Ertl v. Parks & Recreation Comm'n, 76 Wash.App. 110, 113, 882 P.2d 1185 (1994), review denied, 126 Wash.2d 1009, 892 P.2d 1088 (1995)). Restatement ... Id. Here, the area between the mobile home park and the canal was not developed or used as a play area, but was left largely in its natural state and for the most part was undeveloped. In Degel, the landlord had fenced other portions of the premises but had not placed a fence between the play ......
-
Sackett v. State, No. 52966-8-I (WA 8/16/2004)
......7. Tincani v. Inland Empire Zoological Soc'y, 124 Wn.2d 121, 127-28, 875 P.2d 621 (1994) (citing Pedroza v. Bryant, 101 Wn.2d 226, 228, 677 P.2d 166 (1984)). 8. Degel v. Majestic Mobile Manor, Inc., 129 Wn.2d 43, 49, 914 P.2d 728 (1996) (citing Ertl v. Parks & Recreation Comm'n, 76 Wn. App. 110, 113, 882 P.2d 1185 (1994), review denied, 126 Wn.2d 1009 (1995); Van Dinter v. City of Kennewick, 121 Wn.2d 38, 41-42, 846 P.2d 522 (1993)); see also WPI 120.06. 9. Richland Sch. Dist. v. Mabton Sch. Dist., 111 Wn. App. 377, 389, 45 P.3d 580 (2002), ......
- State v. Trujillo
Request a trial to view additional results