Washington Injury Lawyer Blog

Washington Dog Bite Law and its Problems

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:29:01 -0800

From what I can tell, Washington's dog bite statute, RCW 16.08.040 hasn't been changed since 1941, and well, it shows. With the prevalence of severe dog attacks and bites increasing, it sure seems like our dog bite statute should be stronger and broader. Here's the Washington statute:

RCW 16.08.040
Dog Bites - Liability.

The owner of any dog which shall bite any person while such person is in or on a public place or lawfully in or on a private place including the property of the owner of such dog, shall be liable for such damages as may be suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness.

The Washington Dog Bite statute is written in terms of "The owner of any dog" which could be much broader. Case law has helped a bit by expanding this to include harborer or keeper of the dog but there's no reason this change shouldn't be codified. RCW 16.08.040 also limits liability under this statute to an actual dog "bite". Other states, including Arizona, have a much broader dog bite statute. The Arizona dog bite statute, ARS 11-1020 states:

11-1020. Dogs; liability

Injury to any person or damage to any property by a dog while at large shall be the full responsibility of the dog owner or person or persons responsible for the dog when such damages were inflicted.

Judge Kenneth Cowsert Retiring

Tue, 22 Nov 2011 10:52:50 -0800

Judge Cowsert, who has been on Snohomish County Superior Court bench since 1999, retired last Friday. I was fortunate to have tried the last case before Judge Cowsert with a verdict coming in last Wednesday. Judge Cowsert has been one of the bright lights on the Snohomish Superior Court bench and we can just hope that his replacement will be able to fill his shoes. During the trial Judge Cowsert was exceptional. He made very well reasoned rulings, was accomodating and respectful of all parties and counsel, and perhaps most importantly, let us try the case. Best wishes in retirement.

To read more about Judge Cowsert and his retirement, click here.

Why Not To Ever Fly Allegiant Airlines

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 11:47:36 -0800

Yes, this is quite a bit off topic with no legal implications, but there are customer service implications. My brother who lives in the Phoenix area thought it would be really convenient to fly Allegiant Airlines from Mesa, AZ to Bellingham, WA, avoiding Sky Harbor and SeaTac. I'll let you read my brother email to Allegiant and Allegiant's response, but needless to say, he'll be flying from Sky Harbor to SeaTac from now on, as will I.

My brother's email to Allegiant, sent on 7/13/11:

Nature of Request: Cancelled/Delayed/Rescheduled Flight
Name: ***
Email: ***
Telephone: ***
Itinerary Number: ***
Relationship: Self
Request Details: Just want to voice my concerns on my 1st and most likely last flight on Allegiant Air. Flight 216 out of Bellingham, 7-9-11 delayed 1hour and 45 min. 1st time. Then another delay of 1 hour and 30 mins. to bring in another plane. Trying to get any info from your staff was a challenge at best, no communication at all and it seemed to be all too common to them. In the air and close to Mesa a little rough weather and not a word from the cockpit while flying around a storm. On the ground, on the tarmac, we were told we would not be able to de-plane until the lightning stopped, well the lightning stopped, it rained some then stopped and this took 2 hours and again nothing from the cockpit and flight attendants, we were just puppets. All in all, 6 hours of delays, poor communication, no free drinks or any offer of compensation, and I just don't believe I could get on another Allegiant flight and I really wanted this to work because of the convenience.
Pre-Travel inquiries receive a response within 24 - 48 hours.
Post-Travel concerns may require additional research and response time may take 4-6 weeks. (Apparently it's really 8 weeks....)

Allegiant's Response (Received 9/11/11, 2 months later)

From: "702_589-7277_AC_0109703/Conf_Call_Line/Corporate@allegiantair.com" <702_589-7277_AC_0109703/Conf_Call_Line/Corporate@allegiantair.com>
To: ***
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 6:59 PM
Subject: Allegiant Itn# ***

September 11, 2011

Dear Mr. Williams,

Thank you for taking the time to convey your frustration about the delay on your recent flight. On behalf of the entire Allegiant Travel team, we wish to express our sincere apologies for any inconvenience you may have experienced due to your delayed/rescheduled flight.

We would like to thank you for taking the time to convey your flight experience with Allegiant Travel. As we grow and strive to serve more customers, it is imperative that we keep our service levels where our customers have come to expect from us. It is feedback, such as yours, that allows us to see our service through the eyes of our valued customers. We recognize that a delay can be an unsettling experience. Safety is our primary focus in all of our operations at Allegiant Travel. We want to reassure you that Allegiant Travel adheres to the most rigorous schedules of both mandated and preventive maintenance on all aircraft in our fleet.

We understand that a delayed arrival creates inconveniences to plans you may have already made. Please be assured that our greatest desire is to get each and every one of our customers safely to their final destination on time; however, we will never sacrifice safety to meet an on-time departure or arrival.

Allegiant Travel has the right to change or cancel flights without compensation per section 85 of our Contract of Carriage which states:

B. Carrier shall not be liable for any failure or delay in operating any flight due to causes beyond Carrier's control, including but not limited to, acts of God, governmental actions, fire, weather, mechanical difficulties...

In consideration of the inconvenience you experienced, Allegiant Travel has issued $35.00 worth of vouchers to your party. This voucher has been emailed to this email address, and it is good until the date specified on the voucher and is fully transferable. Please be advised this is a final decision for compensation, and nothing further will be authorized nor offered. We do apologize for the lack of customer service you have experienced, we appreciate all feedback from our customers.

When you are ready to rebook using this voucher, you can either book online at www.allegiantair.com, or you can call the Reservations Center at 702-505-8888, option 1, and inform the agent that you are making a new reservation using a credit voucher. Upon concluding your online booking process in the payment screen, select "Credit Voucher" as a payment type and enter the alpha-numeric voucher number, then click "continue." When calling into our Reservations Center, provide to the agent the alpha-numeric voucher number when prompted. Please be advised that all travel involving funds from this voucher must be booked and completed by September 10th, 2012, as we cannot extend the validity of this voucher for any reason.

Moving forward, we do hope you can provide us another opportunity to serve your travel needs in the future. If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us. Thank you.

Respectfully,
Keith S.

Customer Relations Department
Allegiant Travel Company
P.O. Box 401026 Las Vegas, NV 89140
Phone: 702-430-3250 | Fax: 702-853-4264
customer.relations@allegiantair.com | www.allegiant.com

Discovery of Social Media - Facebook, Twitter etc.

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 15:52:25 -0800

For months now I have been sending clients a letter warning them of the perils of using social media. Honestly, very little good can come of it. Like many things in life, words and pictures can be taken out of context. Although there are certainly things posted on Facebook where the context is very clear! What happens in Seattle, should sometimes stay in Seattle.... Regardless of whether or not a person is engaged in litigation, why in the world would you want to post so many private details for the entire world to see. I suppose there is some physiological reason for it that I'm not bright enough to figure out. Although I'm sure that John Smith's exciting night out in Everett was quite something to see....

So how do you handle an interrogatory like this one?

Within the last ten years have you created, maintained, or posted a listing in/or have an account with Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Twitter, MySpace, Word Press, Blogger or any other social networking or blogging device, application, or services? If so, identify:

a) The website address;

b) Your name, email address, log-in and/or user identification for the site;

c) Your Password;

d) Any other necessary information to obtain access to the site;

e) Whether you were previously "friends" or otherwise linked to the profiles of _________ and _________; and

f) The names of any other individuals who have allowed you to access to their passwords and accounts on such websites.

ANSWER:

Ok, and the answer is...OBJECT! There is no way in hell I would provide this information short of a Judge telling me to provide it. Instead of asking for bank statements, I guess the defense is just going to ask for your online banking username and password. How arrogant must one be to send out a rog like this? (Rhetorical question...) Clearly this interrogatory is unduly burdensome and overly broad:

Objection. The request is unduly burdensome, expensive or oppressive in that it would require undue expense, investigation, research, or compilation of information in the possession of non-parties equally accessible to the parties.

I believe that the only information they should have access to is public information. If it's a public Facebook or Twitter post, go for it. They don't need you to provide it. They can go get it themselves. If they want your client's private posts, well they better have some basis as to how this information is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and isn't just an overly broad fishing expedition.

If we are going to reign in these oppressive discovery tactics, we need to take it on with full force. Don't agree to anything like this and make the defense fight for it. They can fight these little skirmishes while we win the war.

Washington Dept. of Labor & Industries and Tobin

Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:50:40 -0800

Subrogation, or in other words, the repayment of medical and wage loss benefits to a health insurance carrier, PIP carrier, Medicare (ugh) or L & I is a subject that could take up an entire edition of The Everett Herald, or for that matter, the Seattle Times. But I'll try to make my point and move on.

Prior to the decision in Tobin v. Department of Labor and Industries, 165 Wn.2d 1016, 199 P.3d 411 (2009), DLI always calculated the amount of reimbursement it is owed by including the entire amount of the settlement/verdict which included general damages. I.e. compensation for pain and suffering. Well, the problem with that was that DLI was getting reimbursed out of compensation received for a benefit that they don't provide. So the Tobin Court reined them back in and said that the Department can only be reimbursed for benefits paid. So the Department could not get reimbursed out of a claimant's recovery for pain and suffering and could not use it in the distribution calculation under RCW 51.24.060(1).

To put it politely, the Tobin decision has ticked off the Department. I guess they think this is something new the court invented. But it's not. In Southwest Fiduciary, Inc. v. AHCCCS, 1 CA-CV 10-0300/10-0301, (2011), the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division 1, came to a similar conclusion. The Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) had been claiming a lien upon the entire recovery of the claimant, just like in Tobin. The Arizona Court of Appeal clarified and stated that in the context of a tort settlement, AHCCCS's share should be calculated based upon the amounts it has paid.

From my perspective, the Tobin decision doesn't limit the recovery that DLI gets, but allows a claimant to actually keep compensation for pain and suffering that they deserve. So until DLI starts to compensate claimants for pain and suffering and other general damages, they just need to relax and back down.

Posted by John Williams of Williams Law Offices, PLLC.

Washington DSHS - At it once again.....

Fri, 12 Aug 2011 10:54:20 -0800

For anyone who follows the complete ineptness of Washington DSHS (Department of Social and Health Services) in Olympia, Washington, this certainly won't be a shock. In July, DSHS released the addresses of almost 4,000 custodial parents, "accidentally" to the non-custodial parent. Putting aside that this is a violation of health privacy laws, how would you like to be a single Mother with a crazy ex-husband who knows where you now live? But, here comes Adolfo Capestany, a spokesman for the Division of Child Support, who said that none of the released addresses were determined to be highly sensitive. Well, that's convenient. Why don't we let the custodial parents who just had his or her address released determine whether it was highly sensitive.

DSHS has become such a joke, this latest foray into complete incompetence isn't all that shocking, it's their response which just sets me off. Capestany said it was "human error", like that makes it all better and everything is ok. That's your state government at work. He also said it was an error in coding on a form and has since made changes to "minimize" the chance of it occurring again. You have got to be kidding me! Minimize the chance of it occurring again? Wow, your state government at work again. How about making changes to ensure that it NEVER happens again. Oh wait, I think I have been insensitive. I just noticed that DSHS set up a toll free phone number you can call if you're worried about identity theft or the possibility of physical or emotional harm as the result of the release. But didn't they say that none of the 4,000 addresses were deemed to be sensitive? Are you waiting to hear about the folks who got fired because of this incredible mistake? Keep waiting. That's your Olympia government at work.....

Posted by John Williams of Williams Law Offices, PLLC.

Press Release - Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum

Mon, 08 Aug 2011 09:00:00 -0800

Date: July 5, 2011
Del Mar, California
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact
John Meade Williams
Williams Law Offices, PLLC
2825 Colby Avenue, Ste 302
Everett WA 98201

PRESS RELEASE
Telephone: 425.252.8547
Firm website: www.williamslawpllc.com
The Million Dollar Advocates Forum is pleased to announce that attorney John Meade Williams of Everett, Washington, has been certified as a life member of both the Million Dollar Advocates Forum and the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum, www.milliondollaradvocates.com.

The Million Dollar Advocates Forum is recognized as one of the most prestigious groups of trial lawyers in the United States. Membership is limited to attorneys who have won million and multi-million dollar verdicts, awards and settlements. The organization was founded in 1993 and there are approximately 4000 members located throughout the country. Fewer than 1% of U.S. lawyers are members. Forum membership acknowledges excellence in advocacy, and provides members with a national network of experienced colleagues for professional referral and information exchange in major cases. Members of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum must have acted as principal counsel in at least one case in which their client has received a verdict, award or settlement in the amount of one million dollars or more.

Members of the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum must be Life Members of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum and must have acted as principal counsel in at least one case which has resulted in a multi-million dollar verdict, award or settlement. Mr. Williams has been approved for membership in both the Million Dollar Advocates Forum and the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum.

John Meade Williams is a graduate of University of Toledo College of Law. His practice is focused on serious personal injury and wrongful death, also representing individuals in insurance bad faith claims.

The Verdict - Casey Anthony

Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:11:25 -0800

Now that the outrage over Casey Anthony's acquittal has subsided a bit, I've had time to reflect on the verdict, the outrage and our criminal justice system. As a civil trial lawyer who hasn't tried a criminal case in many years, I found myself initially stunned at the verdict, but dismayed as well. Not dismayed at the verdict, but at the reaction of what seemed like the entire country, and even my very knowledgeable colleagues. I personally can't say either way that the Anthony jury got it wrong or right. And I find that most people's reaction to the verdict to be arrogant, based upon little or no information and driven by the media. Everyone who was outraged by this "travesty of justice" did all of their research on the case through their local and evening news. In a criminal case, do you realize how little information that is and that you receive the information in the format and from the perspective of the news station delivering the news? And with that, people are satisfied that they have enough information to decide whether a person is guilty of murder? Wow, what a scary society we live in.

This does not take away from the terrible death of Caylee. The idea of a two-year old being murdered, or even just dying at such a young age, shakes my very foundation. If anything happened to any of my children, the devastation would be unbearable. However, regardless of whether the jury got it right or wrong, they heard all of the testimony, saw all of the evidence and based their decision on 100% of the evidence, unlike many people who came to their decision via CNN. In a criminal trial, the verdict must be unanimous. All 12 members of the jury must agree on a verdict. All 12 members on the Anthony jury were able to put all of the media hyperbole and other distractions to the side, focus solely on the evidence and decide that the government did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. While I'm hopeful that I will never be on the receiving end of a criminal trial, if I am, I want a fair and impartial jury like this one that will not be driven by forces outside the evidence presented in the courtroom or pure emotion. The pressure that these jurors felt being empanelled on such a high profile, national case, must have been overwhelming. However, in the face of such pressure to convict this obviously terrible parent, who made some very bad decisions, the jury still chose to express their doubt. If this jury had doubt, we need to accept that and truly believe that our criminal justice system worked. May Caylee Anthony rest in peace.

Posted by John Williams of Williams Law Offices, PLLC.

Paperless with NetDocuments - Security

Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:23:41 -0800

One of the main concerns of attorneys and clients when going paperless and using a remote server to store client information, is security. Can someone hack into the server, is the information private and confidential, can any information be lost etc. NetVoyage Corporation, doing business as NetDocuments, was organized in 1998 as one of the first Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) companies in the world. Their vision was to leverage the Web and the SaaS delivery model to offer the world's most feature-rich and efficient document service, including the management and collaboration of work in process documents and emails, document images, and documents as records.

NetDocuments currently services and hosts over 120 million documents across 75,000 users, and 400+ customers in over 125 countries worldwide. The NetDocuments primary global datacenter facility, located in Ohio, is a world-class facility hosting all documents, emails, and images accessible via the Web. Any equipment, network, or operating system failures will trigger a local backup system to take over operations. The NetDocuments secondary global datacenter, located in Utah is also a world-class datacenter capable of supporting 100% of all NetDocuments users. Documents are stored simultaneously in both datacenters through continuous data replication via high speed VPN. The Utah facility is always ready to take full operational control in case the primary facility is incapacitated.

For more information on NetDocuments Security, feel free to download their White Paper.

If you would like to talk about going paperless, my NetDocuments experience etc., feel free to contact me. Posted by John Williams of Williams Law Offices, PLLC.

Going Paperless....

Fri, 03 Jun 2011 14:59:36 -0800

Like most things in the world, the practice of law is constantly changing. To stay on top, not only must you stay current on relevant law, but you must also embrace new technology and move forward with it. So, we've made the jump into a "paperless" world. Currently all new client files are 100% electronic and stored on secure remote servers. The term for this is "cloud computing". Except for some current client files, we no longer maintain a traditional paper file. We thought that the transition would be pretty difficult, but it has been much easier than we ever imagined. The benefits to my practice and to clients have been tremendous and are being well accepted by clients. I will be going into more detail in later blog posts, focusing on how the system works, security issues and all of the great benefits. Stay tuned.

Your Property Damage Claim and The Body Shop

Fri, 20 May 2011 11:50:13 -0800

Unfortunately, this blog entry was prompted because of a current client's experience with a body shop. When your car is damaged in a crash, you get it repaired at a body shop. Sounds simple, but depending on your body shop and other factors, you could end up having a very unpleasant experience. It doesn't matter if you're in Seattle, Everett or Arlington, when it comes to body shops, there are good ones and bad ones. So it's vitally important to make sure that you choose a reputable shop that does very good work. (On a quick side note, you are under no obligation to use a shop recommended by an insurance company) The best way to locate a reputable shop is through a referral from friends and family. But even then, make sure that you like the shop. Does it look professional or is it a guy working out of his garage?

Next, if an insurance company is paying for the repairs, DO NOT sign the insurance check until your car is completely repaired and you have thoroughly inspected your car to make sure you are satisfied with the work. Only then do you sign the check and give it to the body shop. If a body shop wants you to sign the check prior to starting work, immediately go to another body shop. If you sign the check before the repairs are completed, you are at the mercy of the body shop.

Who should pay for the damage to your car?

Thu, 05 May 2011 11:37:49 -0800

When you are in a car crash and your car is either damaged or totaled, you have an immediate problem. At the very least, you car is drivable but damaged, or damaged beyond repair and a total loss. Assuming you have collision coverage on your car, who pays for the damage to your car? Perhaps a better question is, who do you want to pay for the damage to your car? In most cases, I recommend that you go through your own insurance company and use your own collision coverage and rental coverage. Many people don't consider using their own insurance coverage since the accident wasn't their fault, but there are potential pitfalls when going through the at fault person's insurance company. First, you are at their mercy. If they handle the claim slowly and treat you like a second class citizen, there isn't much you can do. But if you are going through your own insurance company, you are their insured and they owe you significant duties when handling your claim and as such, you will get better service and better treatment. Second, especially in a total loss situation, you will likely obtain a better total loss offer from your own insurance company and they will be more likely to work with you to resolve the claim to your satisfaction. Your own insurance has an obligation to treat you fairly and reasonably, the at fault parties insurance company has no such obligation.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 425-252-8547 or John@williamslawpllc.com

Evidence for Homeowner's Claims

Mon, 07 Jun 2010 13:30:00 -0800

You've done your part and obtained homeowner's insurance coverage or renter's insurance. So if anything ever happens you're taken care of, right? Well, not necessarily, especially when it comes to personal property issues or questions regarding the condition of your house prior to a fire, flood or other event. Especially if your house was completely devastated by a fire.

While you may have coverage for personal property, it can become a monumental task to reconstruct all of your belongings. Maybe you have some documentation in a safe deposit box, or perhaps a retailer has information that you purchased that ring or television, but for the most part you will have to attempt to remember all of your property. At best, you may be able to remember half of what was actually lost. Think of all of the little items that you'll forget. Maybe it's something that was just worth a dollar, but there will be a lot of items worth a dollar, or five dollars that you will not get compensated for.

The solution? It's easy. Videotape your house and everything in your house. I mean everything. Open drawers, open cabinets, open closets, go in the garage, leave nothing out of the video. It doesn't have to be a masterpiece, just enough to help identify items and enough to help you itemize your property. So when you are videotaping, freely talk about what you are looking at, describe it, pick it up if necessary to get a better view. There may be some items that you want to take pictures of as well. If you own guns, they should ideally be in a fireproof safe or other safe location, and in addition to videotaping them, be sure to write down the serial numbers. If you have expensive jewelry, you may want to have it identified and appraised by a jeweler. I would suggest redoing the video every two to three years or when your personal property substantially changes.

All of the information must then be stored off site, at a relative's house, your office etc. Not a lot of use in compiling all of this information and having it burn up in a fire. Also, as a side note, if you have important documents and/or photos on your home computer, get a back up drive and get that information backed up so it can be stored off site. Enduring a tragedy that takes your house is bad enough, don't compound it by lack of preparation.

Is It Really An Accident? (Part Two)

Thu, 03 Jun 2010 15:12:56 -0800

(Continued From Part One)

I believe that most “accidents”, or better stated, most car crashes/collisions, are completely preventable. When another driver slams his car into the back of your car, was he on the phone? looking for new music on his IPod? looking at the “accident” that occurred on the other side of the road? The list goes on and on. But the link between all of these reasons, is one of conscious choice, conscious decision. The driver that slams into the back of you, that runs the red light, that turns left in front of you, all made a conscious decision to do something other than paying complete attention to their driving. If your main focus while driving, is driving, I believe that the likelihood of you being involved in a car crash which is your fault, is slim to none. And as my Father used to say, Slim has left town.

Don’t we all have a duty, a moral obligation to ensure that while we are driving, we do not engage in an activity that could possibly result in injury to fellow drivers? I think so. So the next time we hop into our cars, why don’t we do something novel here in the Puget Sound area, lets focus on driving and getting to our destination without injuring ourselves or anyone else in the process.

Is It Really An Accident? (Part One)

Tue, 01 Jun 2010 14:02:09 -0800

Yes, I've been saying it for years, but I'm not sure why. Car "accident", truck "accident", motorcycle "accident". I think it's just learned habit, but probably not correct. Webster's Dictionary defines accident as:

Main Entry: ac·ci·dent
Pronunciation: \ˈak-sə-dənt, -ˌdent; ˈaks-dənt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin accident-, accidens nonessential quality, chance, from present participle of accidere to happen, from ad- + cadere to fall — more at chance
Date: 14th century
1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : chance (met by accident rather than by design)
2 a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance b : an unexpected and medically important bodily event especially when injurious (a cerebrovascular accident) c : an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought.

An unforeseen and unplanned event? An unfortunate event resulting from carelessness or ignorance? Maybe. An unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct? I just don't think that slamming your car into the back of another car on I-5 in Seattle or Everett, is unforeseen, unplanned or not due to any fault. I suppose that's my problem with the term accident, it really infers that no one is at fault, it was just an accident. If you just slammed your car into the rear of another car, it sure sounds like you're at fault....

(Part Two to follow)