Kataisto v. Low
| Decision Date | 14 March 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 39109,39109 |
| Citation | 73 Wn.2d 341,438 P.2d 623 |
| Parties | Leta KATAISTO, a single woman, Appellant, v. John Doe LOW and Dorothia Low, his wife, and Jack Corrock, Respondents. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
William Merchant Pease of Walthew, Warner & Keefe, Seattle, for appellant.
Karr, Tuttle, Campbell, Koch & Campbell, Robert P. Piper, Wolf, Cafferty & Wilkins, Seattle, for respondents.
The plaintiff (appellant) appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants (respondents).
Leta Kataisto, the plaintiff, slipped on a boardwalk and was injured while visiting her sister, Dorothia Low, early on a rainy morning. She brought this suit against Dorothia Low and her lessor, Jack Corrock, alleging negligence on the part of either or both. Dorothia Low cross-claimed against Corrock, alleging that a covenant to repair made him answerable for any negligence established by the plaintiff.
Based on interrogatories propounded to the plaintiff and on depositions taken, both defendants moved for summary judgment, which was granted.
The defendants contend that the judgment must be affirmed without reaching the merits because this court has no statement of facts before it on which to base a review, and it is presumed in such a case that the trial court's judgment was proper in law and fact. We agree.
The plaintiff has submitted a transcript certified by the clerk of the King County Superior Court, which contains interrogatories, depositions and affidavits; but has not filed a statement of facts certified by the trial judge, as provided for in ROA 34 and 37. Neither does the trial court's order granting the motion for summary judgment specifically identify the affidavits, the depositions, or the interrogatories. The rule applied in this situation, and the reasons for applying it, are clearly explained in American Universal Ins. Co. v. Ranson, 59 Wash.2d 811, at 815--816, 370 P.2d 867, 870 (1962):
In an appellate review of a summary judgment entered pursuant to Rule of Pleading, Practice and Procedure 56, RCW Vol. O, this court can review only those matters that have been presented to the trial court for its consideration before entry of the summary judgment. The matters considered may be certified to this court by either of two methods, or a combination of them. First, they may be incorporated in a statement of facts certified by the trial court; second, they may be identified with particularity in the summary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garrisey v. Westshore Marina Associates
...It should have been, because it is described in the summary judgment as a matter considered by the trial court. Kataisto v. Low, 73 Wash.2d 341, 438 P.2d 623 (1968). However, the accuracy of defendants' counsel's summary of portions of the deposition is not disputed nor did plaintiff move t......
-
Grimsby v. Samson
...to base review, and it is presumed in such a case that the trial court's judgments were proper in law and in fact. Kataisto v. Low, 73 Wash.2d 341, 438 P.2d 623 (1968) is cited in Our review of the record compels us to deny defendants' motion. Kataisto was concerned with a defendant's motio......
-
Lake Stevens Sewer Dist., Snohomish County v. Village Homes, Inc.
...signed by the trial court and then furnished to this court by transcript certified by the clerk of court. See also Kataisto v. Low, 73 Wash.2d 341, 438 P.2d 623 (1968). The absence of evidence to rebut the contentions of the district, when considered together with the facts deemed admitted ......
-
Bowen v. Baumgardner
...Code was not pleaded in the complaint, nor referred to in the affidavit before the trial court. See RCW 4.36.110; Kataisto v. Low, 73 Wash.2d 341, 438 P.2d 623 (1968); Shoberg v. Kelly, 1 Wash.App. 673, 463 P.2d 280 (1969).2 These include Jess v. McNamer, 42 Wash.2d 466, 255 P.2d 902 (1953)......