Olympia Personal Injury Lawyer - Premises Liability

Releases are Narrowly Construed--Health Clubs and Recreational Equipment Providers Exposed to Liability

Michael Myers — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:33:42 GMT

Gyms are notorious for making their members sign "releases". So are sports leagues and places that rent recreational equipment. But these releases don't provide immunity for all injuries. In fact, they only provide immunity for injuries incurred under a narrow set of circumstances.

This point was illustrated by the Alaska Supreme Court in the case of Moore v. Hartley Motors. It held that despite signing a release of claims for "all bodily injuries and property damage arising out of participation," a woman could still sue for an accident that occurred in an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) training class.

In 2001 a woman sued the instructor of the ATV class, the owner of the property where the class was held and the creator the classes' curriculum after she accidentally drove her ATV off the course and hit a rock that was hidden behind some tall grass.

The decision, made by the Alaska Supreme Court, stated that "the release does not discuss or even mention liability for general negligence. Its opening sentences refers only the unavoidable and in inherent risks of ATV riding, and nothing in its ensuing language suggests an intent to release [the defendants] from liability for acts of negligence unrelated to those inherent risks."

There are two big points here: (1) releases are narrowly construed and (2) don't pre-judge your claim--if a claim might exist, speak with an attorney...don't pre-emptively dismiss your own case by saying, "I signed a release, I probably don't have a claim."

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Premises Liability / Slip & Fall.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Myers

Worker Memorial Day Honors Those Who Died on the Job

Ryan Nute — Wed, 09 May 2007 08:47:48 GMT

112 Washington residents died in 2006 because of injuries sustained in the workplace. A memorial was held by the Washington Department of Labor & Industries in April, which was attended by Governor Chris Gregoire.

The ceremony has been held at the Department's headquarters in Tumwater for the past fourteen years.

Many people are surprised to learn that injured workers are generally limited to workers' compensation benefits for an on-the-job injury, even when caused by the negligence of the employer or a co-worker. However, there are many situations where a worker is injured on the job by the negligence of a third-party other than the employer or a co-worker. In such a case the worker can sue in court and recover damages caused by the negligence.

Tort Claims Against the State of Washington

Ryan Nute — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 19:01:57 GMT

You may be surprised to learn that the historical rule was that citizens could not sue their government for its negligent acts. The doctrine was called "sovereign immunity." While the limitations imposed by sovereign immunity have eroded considerably, there are still procedural hurdles today to filing a negligence claim against the State of Washington.

As a procedural matter, all negligence and tort claims against the State must be presented to the Office of Risk Management. The claim forms must contain all of the information required by statute. The claimant must wait sixty days for the State to evaluate the claim before filing suit.

The rationale for the waiting period is so the State can evaluate the claim and decide whether to negotiate or pay it. In my experience, the State simply never responds. In practice, the claims filing is more often used by the State as a weapon to deny claims that are not properly filed.

The claim filing requirements contain a number of traps for the unwary. If in doubt, you should consult a lawyer about your negligence or tort claim against the State of Washington.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ryan Nute

Bicycle Advocacy Group Challenges Ordinance Barring Repairs to Trail

Ryan Nute — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 17:46:13 GMT

The Lake Forest Park city council passed Ordinance 951, which reportedly prohibits King County from upgrading a section of the Burke Gilman Trail to improve its safety. Cascade Bicycle Club, a local bicycle advocacy group, is challenging the ordinance.

The group filed an appeal with the Growth Management Hearings Board and contends that Ordinance 951 violates Washington's Growth Management Act.

Trail improvement construction was scheduled to take place in 2007-2008. The ordinance and subsequent legal challenge will likely alter that schedule.

Local Dog Breed Bans at Issue

Ryan Nute — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 14:01:33 GMT

Pit bulls and Rottweilers are the targets of proposed ordinances in two towns. Should they be defined as "potentially dangerous" or banned outright?

The Richland council rejected a proposed ordinance while the Royal City council approved a ban on pit bulls and Rottweilers.

As one might expect, the issue was hotly debated.

Unfortunately many owners of dangerous dogs lack insurance coverage or other assets to pay adequate damages to dog bite victims. These are issues which should be explored thoroughly in any serious dog bite injury case.

Dispute Over Trail Safety in Thurston County

Ryan Nute — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 10:01:39 GMT

Recreational trails are a valuable public resource. But as a dispute in Thurston County demonstrates, there is often room for disagreement about trail use and safety issues.

The Capital Bicycle Club wants to use posts rather than gates at highway intersections along Thurston County's Chehalis Western and Yelm Tenino recreation trails. Officials are concerned that posts would cause bicyclists to speed or crowd pedestrians. Bicyclists respond that the gates present safety hazards of their own.

Trail users who are injured by another's negligence may well have claims against the wrongdoer's homeowner's insurance coverage. There may also be claims against the governmental entity responsible for designing or maintaining the trail if done so negligently.