Sidis v. Brodie/Dohrmann, Inc., Nos. 57660-2
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Writing for the Court | DOLLIVER; DORE |
| Citation | 117 Wn.2d 325,815 P.2d 781 |
| Parties | Michael D. SIDIS, a single man, Petitioner, v. BRODIE/DOHRMANN, INC., a Washington corporation, Spring Ltd., a Swiss corporation, and Cambridge Corporation, Inc., an Illinois corporation, Respondents. Lesta CLARK, personal representative of the Estate of Charles Rasberry, and Lesta Clark, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Washington, Defendant, Dexter H. Pinkman and "Jane Doe" Pinkman, husband and wife, Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 05 September 1991 |
| Docket Number | 57673-4,Nos. 57660-2 |
Page 325
v.
BRODIE/DOHRMANN, INC., a Washington corporation, Spring
Ltd., a Swiss corporation, and Cambridge
Corporation, Inc., an Illinois
corporation, Respondents.
Lesta CLARK, personal representative of the Estate of
Charles Rasberry, and Lesta Clark, Petitioner,
v.
The STATE of Washington, Defendant,
Dexter H. Pinkman and "Jane Doe" Pinkman, husband and wife,
Respondents.
En Banc.
Page 326
Robert O. Dire, Lynnwood, for petitioner Sidis.
Robert A. Izzo, Tacoma, for petitioner Clark.
Short, Cressman & Burgess, Scott A. Smith, Seattle, for respondents Spring Ltd. and Cambridge Corp.
Hackett, Beecher & Hart, Steven A. Branom, Seattle, for respondents Pinkman.
Page 327
Bryan P. Haretiaux, Harbaugh & Bloom, Gary N. Bloom, Spokane, amicus curiae for petitioners on behalf of Washington State Trial Lawyers Ass'n.
Craig L. McIvor, Patricia H. Welch, Seattle, amicus curiae for respondents on behalf of Washington Defense Trial Lawyers Ass'n.
DOLLIVER, Justice.
Review of these consolidated cases was granted on one issue only: whether, under RCW 4.16.170, service of process on one defendant tolls the statute of limitation as to unserved defendants. We hold it does.
The facts are not at issue. In 1984, Michael Sidis, a restaurant cook, was injured when a table-side, alcohol-burning stove exploded as he was refueling it. In [815 P.2d 782] 1986, he filed a personal injury action against Brodie/Dohrmann, the company which sold the stove to the restaurant; Spring, the Swiss manufacturer of the stove; and Cambridge, the importer. Timely service was made on Brodie/Dohrmann. Spring and Cambridge were brought into the action less than 3 years after the injury by means of a third party complaint filed against them by Brodie/Dohrmann, but were not served by Sidis during that period.
Sidis argued that service on Brodie/Dohrmann tolled the statute of limitation as to all defendants named in the complaint because RCW 4.16.170, the tolling statute, states: "[T]he plaintiff shall cause one or more of the defendants to be served ... within ninety days from the date of filing the complaint." The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Brodie/Dohrmann on the issue of duty and in favor of Spring and Cambridge on the basis that service on Brodie/Dohrmann did not toll the statute of limitation against them, and therefore, they were not timely served. Sidis appealed. In Sidis v. Brodie/Dohrmann, Inc., 58 Wash.App. 665, 669, 794 P.2d 1309 (1990), the Court of Appeals decided the statutory language was ambiguous, stating:
The meaning of the "one or more of the defendants" language is obscured by the combination of singular and plural
Page 328
forms in the sentence that is the focus of the instant appeal: "If service has not been had on the defendant prior to the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff shall cause one or more of the defendants to be served ...". The shift between the first and second clause makes the intended application of the provision to cases involving multiple defendants unclear....The court went on to affirm the summary judgment for Spring and Cambridge based on the running of the statute of limitation.
Lesta Clark's son was killed by Dexter Pinkman in a pedestrian/automobile accident. Clark timely filed a complaint for death of a child against Pinkman and the State of Washington. The State was served on the 90th day after filing, but Pinkman was not served until over a week later. The parties stipulated to the State's dismissal, but the trial court denied Pinkman's motion for dismissal. The Court of Appeals granted review and, in an unpublished opinion, dismissed the case against Pinkman based on the Sidis interpretation of RCW 4.16.170. See Clark v. Pinkman, noted at 59 Wash.App. 1002 (1990).
The statute in question states:
For the purpose of tolling any statute of limitations an action shall be deemed commenced when the complaint is filed or summons is served whichever occurs first. If service has not been had on the defendant prior to the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff shall cause one or more of the defendants to be served personally, or commence service by publication within ninety days from the date of filing the complaint. If the action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bosteder v. City of Renton, 74934-5.
...We find neither argument convincing. 1. The statute of limitations argument ¶ 54 In Sidis v. Brodie/Dohrmann, Inc., 117 Wash.2d 325, 329, 815 P.2d 781 (1991), this court read RCW 4.16.17017 literally to mean that service on at least Page 331 defendant before the statute of limitations expir......
-
Custody of Smith, In re, STILLWELL-S
...what it says." State v. McCraw, 127 Wash.2d 281, 288, 898 P.2d 838 (1995) (quoting Sidis v. Brodie/Dohrmann, Inc., 117 Wash.2d 325, 329, 815 P.2d 781 Both RCW 26.10.160 and RCW 26.09.240 address the rights of nonparents to seek visitation with a child. Both statutes have been amended severa......
-
Crosby v. County of Spokane, 65924-9
...v. City of Olympia, 96 Wash.2d 359, 635 P.2d 721 (1981), disapproved on other grounds by Sidis v. Brodie/Dohrmann, Inc., 117 Wash.2d 325, 815 P.2d 781 (1991). In a number of cases where joinder did not occur within the limitations period, the issue has arisen as to whether joinder and relat......
-
Beal for Martinez v. City of Seattle, 1
...96 Wash.2d 359, 368, 635 Page 779 P.2d 721 (1981), disapproved on other grounds by, Sidis v. Brodie/Dohrmann, Inc., 117 Wash.2d 325, 815 P.2d 781 The trial court and the Court of Appeals considered both rules in deciding the propriety of the amendment in this case. Therefore, in order to de......
-
Crosby v. County of Spokane, No. 65924-9
...v. City of Olympia, 96 Wash.2d 359, 635 P.2d 721 (1981), disapproved on other grounds by Sidis v. Brodie/Dohrmann, Inc., 117 Wash.2d 325, 815 P.2d 781 (1991). In a number of cases where joinder did not occur within the limitations period, the issue has arisen as to whether joinder and relat......
-
Bosteder v. City of Renton, No. 74934-5.
...We find neither argument convincing. 1. The statute of limitations argument ¶ 54 In Sidis v. Brodie/Dohrmann, Inc., 117 Wash.2d 325, 329, 815 P.2d 781 (1991), this court read RCW 4.16.17017 literally to mean that service on at least Page 331 defendant before the statute of limitations expir......
-
Custody of Smith, In re, STILLWELL-S
...what it says." State v. McCraw, 127 Wash.2d 281, 288, 898 P.2d 838 (1995) (quoting Sidis v. Brodie/Dohrmann, Inc., 117 Wash.2d 325, 329, 815 P.2d 781 Both RCW 26.10.160 and RCW 26.09.240 address the rights of nonparents to seek visitation with a child. Both statutes have been amended severa......
-
Beal for Martinez v. City of Seattle, No. 1
...96 Wash.2d 359, 368, 635 Page 779 P.2d 721 (1981), disapproved on other grounds by, Sidis v. Brodie/Dohrmann, Inc., 117 Wash.2d 325, 815 P.2d 781 The trial court and the Court of Appeals considered both rules in deciding the propriety of the amendment in this case. Therefore, in order to de......