181, where a party stated that he had known about his asbestos related disease during a doctors visit in 1982 in a prior deposition, but later stated he had not known about the asbestos related disease until 1985. This was first established in Marshall v. Washington case law has long held that a party is bound to their deposition testimony thus that party cannot fabricate a declaration to stave off summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and plaintiff appealed. The expert concluded that there was a zero percent chance a startle response would cause the injuries plaintiff alleged. But, the expert testified, any such startle response would cause an individual to pull their head close to their body and bring their hands to their head rather than cause lateral movement of the body. This time the County submitted a revised declaration from the expert that reiterated his prior opinions, but also agreed that plaintiff could have experienced a startle response. The County filed its third motion for summary judgement. The trial court denied the motion concluding that there was still an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff could have been so startled by the collision that she hit her head. Plaintiff then argued that the collision was extremely terrifying and caused her to “violently shake from side to side”. The County’s second motion included a declaration from a biomedical engineer and accident reconstruction expert stating that any jostling caused by the collision would be minimal and no contact with any interior components would result. The trial court, while agreeing that the video showed no movement of plaintiff’s car, denied the motion, indicating that expert testimony was needed to establish the collision did not cause plaintiff’s injuries. First, the County argued that the video footage from the bus showed that the collision did not cause any movement to plaintiff’s vehicle – thus providing no mechanism for injury. The County filed three different summary judgment motions. Plaintiff filed a negligence action against King County (“the County”). After the accident, plaintiff claimed that the collision caused her to hit her head on the side window and rearview mirror resulting in a concussion. This collision was recorded by a camera on the bus. On September 16, 2016, Virginia Berry (“plaintiff”) was sitting in her parked car when a King County Metro bus hit her driver side mirror and scraped the corner of her front bumper. Thus, the Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant King County’s motion for summary judgment.īerry v. The Court found that plaintiff’s version of events was so contradictory to video footage of the accident that no jury would believe her, and that plaintiff’s new declaration was inadmissible as it contradicted her sworn deposition testimony. So, what was the statement that contradicted plaintiff’s case? The direction she sat in her seat.ĭivision One of the Washington State Court of Appeals analyzed the testimony of a plaintiff who claimed she was injured when a King County Metro bus clipped her parked car. In this case, defendant King County prevailed on its summary judgment motion by highlighting that not only did the plaintiff contradict their own deposition testimony, but also contradicted video evidence of the accident. Contradictions, big or small, can make or break a case.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |