Sackett v. State, No. 52966-8-I (WA 8/16/2004)

• Decision Date: 16 August 2004
• Docket Number: No. 52966-8-I,52966-8-I
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: JUANITA SACKETT and LAWRENCE C. SACKETT, wife and husband, and the marital community comprised thereof, Appellants, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON; WASHINGTON STATE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT NO. 7 d/b/a SHORELINE COMMUNITY COLLEGE d/b/a WASHINGTON STATE PARENT COOP, and; SHORELINE COMMUNITY COOPERATIVE PRESCHOOL, Respondents.

Page 1

Unpublished Opinion

JUANITA SACKETT and LAWRENCE C. SACKETT, wife and husband, and the marital community comprised thereof, Appellants, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON; WASHINGTON STATE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT NO. 7 d/b/a SHORELINE COMMUNITY COLLEGE d/b/a WASHINGTON STATE PARENT COOP, and; SHORELINE COMMUNITY COOPERATIVE PRESCHOOL, Respondents.

No. 52966-8-I

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.

Filed: August 16, 2004

Appeal from Superior Court of King County. Docket No. 02-2-08893-7. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 08/18/2003. Judge signing: Hon. Glenna S Hall.

Counsel for Appellant(s), John J. Polito, Polito & Sweigert PLLC, 10900 NE 4th St Ste 1215, Bellevue, WA 98004-5893.

Counsel for Respondent(s), Andrew Thomas Biggs, Northcraft Bigby & Owada, 720 Olive Way Ste 1905, Seattle, WA 98101-1871.

AGID, J.

Juanita Sackett tripped and fell while volunteering at a state-run preschool. She sued the school for negligence based on a premises liability theory, and the trial court dismissed the case on summary judgment. Sackett appeals, arguing she submitted sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the school maintained the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Because Sackett presented enough evidence to raise a question of fact about whether the object she tripped over was a hazard, dismissal on summary judgment was inappropriate. We reverse and remand the case for further proceedings.

FACTS

The Shoreline Community Cooperative Preschool (school) is a parent-teacher cooperative school affiliated with the Shoreline Community College. Juanita Sackett's grandchild attended the school, and Sackett began volunteering there in September 1998. In April 1999, Sackett tripped and fell while she was volunteering. Sackett was standing at the table in the school's craft room when she picked up two bottles of glue, took one step backward, and turned to walk toward a shelving unit where the glue was stored. As she stepped forward, she tripped on a platform, fell down, and broke her ankle. Her broken ankle caused further health complications and required surgery.¹

The school had installed the platform to enable the children to reach the sink. The sink was in a corner of the room, and the platform extended out from underneath it. The platform was approximately 36 inches long, 50 inches wide, and 4 1/2 inches tall. It was painted blue, and the floor on which the platform stood was not blue.² Sackett had been in the craft room about six to ten times before, and she had worked at the craft table, near the platform, two or three times. She testified that she had seen the platform before.

Sackett and her husband sued the State of Washington, Washington State Community College District Number Seven, and the school for breaching its duty to maintain safe premises and avoid creating an unsafe and hazardous environment for adult volunteers. The school moved for summary judgment, arguing that Sackett offered no evidence of a dangerous condition on the school's property. The trial court agreed, granted the motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the case.

DISCUSSION

In reviewing a trial court's decision to grant summary judgment, we review questions of law de novo,³ and consider all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.⁴ Absent a genuine issue about any material fact, the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.⁵ Summary judgment is proper `if reasonable persons could reach only one conclusion from all of the evidence.'⁶ To establish a negligence claim, a plaintiff must prove the defendant had a duty, the defendant breached that duty, the plaintiff was injured, and the breach proximately caused the injury.⁷ The parties in this case agree for purposes of the summary judgment motion that Sackett was a business invitee when she was injured. Thus, the school owed Sackett a duty to exercise ordinary care to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition.⁸ The issue is whether the school breached this duty.

Whether a party breached its duty is generally a question of fact for a jury.⁹ On review of a summary judgment order, the court may determine questions of fact as a matter of law `only when reasonable minds could reach but one conclusion from them.'<sup>10</sup> To support her claim, Sackett primarily relies on a report presented by G. David Sloan, an expert in forensic human factors. Dr. Sloan characterized the platform as a potential tripping hazard and stated, `The platform, per se, did not pose a problem, rather it was its location that posed the problem.' He opined that the platform did not fall within Sackett's central visual field, Sackett lacked an `a priori expectancy that there would be an abrupt change in elevation between her and the bookshelf{,}' and Sackett lacked sufficient previous exposure to the platform to develop an `ad hoc expectancy' that the platform would be there. Dr. Sloan further stated that Sackett's route of travel was a foreseeable pedestrian path and therefore the school should have moved the platform and sink, moved the shelving unit, designed the platform so that it did not extend into the walkway, painted the platform `safety yellow,' and/or restricted the use of the platform area to regular personnel. Finally, Dr. Sloan noted that the school was designed and constructed to accommodate young children, but because the school recruits adult volunteers, `prudent measures should be taken to reduce the risk of falls in such a setting. In {Dr. Sloan's} opinion as a human factors specialist, this was not done at Shoreline Parent Co-op Preschool.'

Resolution of the summary judgment issue in this case is difficult. Despite Dr. Sloan's criticism of the platform's location, he never directly opined that the platform posed an unreasonable risk. Nor did Sackett present evidence from preschool designers or constructors to demonstrate standard practice and what constitutes...