Mesa v. Spokane World Exposition, 2162-III
| Decision Date | 11 October 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 2162-III,2162-III |
| Citation | 18 Wn.App. 609,570 P.2d 157 |
| Parties | Artemio MESA, Appellant, v. SPOKANE WORLD EXPOSITION, a/k/a Expo '74 Corporation, H. Halvorson, Inc., and Max J. Kuney Corporation, Respondents. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
D. E. McKelvey, Jr., Hamblen, Gilbert & Brooke, P. S., Spokane, for appellant.
John T. Krall, Richter, Wimberley & Ericson, Spokane, for respondent Spokane World Expo.
Richard E. Hayes, MacGillivray, Jones, Clarke, Schiffner & Johnson, Spokane, for Halvorson, Inc.
C. E. Huppin, Huppin, Ewing, Anderson & Hergert, P. S., Spokane, for Max J. Kuney Corp.
Artemio Mesa appeals a summary judgment dismissing his complaint for damages arising from a personal injury.
Viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in a light most favorable to Mesa, the depositions and affidavits before the court support the following factual statement:
On Sunday, March 17, 1974, in response to a general public invitation to visit the grounds and pavilions of Expo '74 before they were fenced in preparation for the exposition's opening, Mesa and three companions traveled to the site. They entered the grounds through the breezeway between the Opera House and the Washington State Pavilion (Center). After touring the site for approximately 1 hour, they decided to leave; however, they were attracted to the Center by a line of visitors entering it through the west-end doors. After entering the Center with other visitors, they proceeded to the eastern portion of it. Evidence of construction in progress was obvious. Mesa and his companions discovered an unlighted stairway and ventured up it. Just after stepping off the stairway's third landing, plaintiff fell through an unbarricaded ventilator shaft. The place where the accident occurred was dark; a barricade had been removed on the preceding Friday.
Unlike most of the other pavilions, the Center was not owned or controlled by Spokane World Exposition (Expo). The western portion of the Center was under the sole control of defendant Max J. Kuney Corporation (Kuney), and the eastern portion of the Center was under the sole control of defendant H. Halvorson, Inc. (Halvorson). The west-end doors to the Center were locked at the close of work on Friday, March 15. The place where the injury occurred was in the Halvorson portion of the Center and far removed from the breezeway. No one from Kuney or Expo was informed that a barrier around the shaft had been removed by employees of Halvorson. No personnel of Halvorson, Kuney or Expo were on the premises at the time of the fall.
At no time while touring the Center did Mesa or his companions observe any warning signs, no trespassing signs, danger signs, ropes or barriers, no admittance signs, guards, employees of Expo, hazard lights or other evidence that the Center was not to be visited within the scope of Expo's invitation.
Defendants denied any negligence and moved for summary judgment. The court granted defendants' motions concluding:
(A) With regard to Halvorson : (1) Mesa was a trespasser, (2) Halvorson's only duty was not to willfully or wantonly injure Mesa, (3) Mesa's injury was not the result of a willful or wanton act, i. e., the shaft was located atop three flights of stairs, was part of the total construction process, was not designed or intended to cause injury, and was discoverable as a dangerous condition by anyone exercising reasonable care for his own safety.
(B) With regard to Kuney : (1) It was not the possessor of the area where the accident occurred, (2) it did not invite Mesa into its portion of the Center, (3) it had locked the west-end doors upon completion of work on Friday, March 15, (4) Mesa was a trespasser in the area under Kuney's control, (5) no willful or wanton act occurred in Kuney's area which resulted in Mesa's injury, (6) even if Mesa was an invitee or licensee, there was no factual basis to conclude that Kuney knew of the condition of the Halvorson portion of the Center, or that Kuney had any duty to warn Mesa about any unknown hazard.
(C) With regard to Expo : (1) Although it issued the general invitation to the public to tour the grounds and pavilions, it had no authority to invite the public to enter the Center, (2) while the breezeway was used for the purpose of ingress or egress to the site, Expo had no duty to warn Mesa of conditions on adjacent premises unless the premises contained a hidden hazard which could result in foreseeable injury, and (3) while an open shaft at the top of three flights of stairs in the dark may be a hidden hazard, it was far removed from the breezeway.
The sole question is whether...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adkins v. Aluminum Co. of America
...a purpose directly or indirectly connected with business dealings with the possessor of the land).42 See Mesa v. Spokane World Exposition, 18 Wash.App. 609, 613, 570 P.2d 157 (1977), review denied, 90 Wash.2d 1001 (1978) (scope of invitation is question of fact).43 See CR 51(f); Davis v. Gl......
-
Egede-Nissen v. Crystal Mountain, Inc.
...she would retain until adequately warned of limits to the area of her invitation. Miniken v. Carr, supra; Mesa v. Spokane World Exposition, 18 Wash.App. 609, 570 P.2d 157 (1977). If, however, petitioner unreasonably strayed beyond the area of invitation, her status would change from that of......
-
Swanson v. McKain
...did not occur on land owned or controlled by them for purposes of the imposition of a duty of care (See Mesa v. Spokane World Exposition, 18 Wash.App. 609, 613, 570 P.2d 157 (1977), review denied, 90 Wash.2d 1001 (1978)); or, that the evidence is insufficient to establish that the breach of......
-
Ralston v. Port of Port Angeles, No. 34267-7-II (Wash. App. 11/14/2006)
...him a duty because they possessed the marina and had the right to control marina activities. He relies on Mesa v. Spokane World Exposition, 18 Wn. App. 609, 570 P.2d 157 (1977), for the proposition that whether a particular party possesses land depends on the party's control over the proper......
-
Statutory Authority and Laws Enforced
...of rulemakings that were based on largely undefined public policy grounds and which culminated in a proposed rule to, among other aff’d , 570 P.2d 157 (7th Cir.), cert. denied , 439 U.S. 821, reissued , 92 F.T.C. 848 (1978)). 87. Advertising Substantiation Policy Statement , supra note 81. ......