Supreme Court of Washington Blog : Supreme Court of Washington Blog : Washington Public Policy & Budget News : Freedom Foundation : WA State Tax & Labor Law Commentary & Updates

State v. King, No. 80948-8. Tyler King was riding his motorcycle southbound on Interstate 5 north of Vancouver city limits when he was stopped and issued a criminal citation for reckless driving by Vancouver police officer Jeff Starks. King had stood up on the pegs of his motorcycle, looked at the vehicle he was approaching, and  accelerated to pass the vehicle. King and Starks both testified at the trial, offering different interpretations of the facts. Starks offered opinion testimony that King's driving had been reckless, which King's attorney did not object to at trial but then raised on appeal. King also challenged that the officer was outside of his jurisdiction without an interlocal agreement and without satisfying the statutory emergency exception.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court sided with King and held that Starks did not have jurisdiction to issue the criminal citation. The Court, in an opinion by Justice Sanders and joined by four other justices, determines that Stark's  interpretation of King's actions would not have constituted "an emergency involving an immediate threat to human life or property."

King did not nearly hit another car, nor run a light, nor weave across traffic lanes. He did not pop a wheelie, cut off another car, nor, for that matter, drive in reverse along the shoulder. At most, King glared at the driver of the large truck, stood on his foot pegs for three to five seconds, and accelerated at high speed past the truck. As aforementioned, Starks could not verify that King accelerated away at what he thought was 100 m.p.h. Even so, the officer testified King slowed down as he approached other traffic and pulled over immediately when Starks signaled him to do so.

The majority concludes that the trial court was wrong to simply take the definition of reckless driving and assume that it "automatically fit within the emergency exception." The majority also suggests that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the opinion testimony issue was foreclosed by the lack of an objection at trial. Justice Chambers, who signed the majority opinion, wrote separately to respond to the dissent. Justice Fairhurst, joined by Justice Madsen, concurrs while arguing that "it is unnecessary to discuss, even as dicta, the officer's opinion testimony."

The Chief Justice, joined by Justice Owens, dissents.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Kappelman v. Lutz, No. 80996-8. Theodore Lutz took Amber Kappleman for a ride on his motorcycle even though he had only an instructional permit which did not allow him to carry passengers. They crashed when a deer ran out in front of them on the highway. Kappleman was injured, sued Lutz, and lost at the trial court. She appealed, citing the judge's refusal to allow evidence that Lutz lacked a motorcycle endorsement and his instructions to the jury on the "sudden emergency doctrine" (which says that a person in danger cannot be expected to "act as prudently as one might have had there been time for deliberation"). The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court and today the Supreme Court unanimously affirms that decision in an opinion by Justice James Johnson. (briefs and arguments)

Putman v. Wenatchee Valley Medical Center, et al., No. 80888-1. Kimme Putman sued the Medical Center and several of its medical staff, alleging negligent failure to diagnose her ovarian cancer. The trial court dismissed because Putman failed to file a "certificate of merit" as required by RCW 7.70.150. Here, the Supreme Court reverses and holds that the statute violates the State Constitution because it "unduly burdens the right of access to courts" and violates the separation of powers. According to the majority opinion by Justice Owens, "Requiring plaintiffs to submit evidence supporting their claims prior to the discovery process violates the plaintiffs' right to access to courts." Justice Madsen, joined by Justice James Johnson, concurs as to separation of powers, but disagrees that the statute unduly interferes with access to the courts. (briefs and arguments).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link