Opinions - September 16, 2010
The Supreme Court released opinions in three cases on Thursday.
Curtis v. Lein, No. 83307-9. Tambra Curtis lived on a farm owned by Jack and Claire Lein. Curtis was injured after falling through a wooden dock on the Lein property. The dock was subsequently destroyed. The trial court ruled in favor of the property owners, saying that Curtis failed to prove that the Leins knew or should have known about the dock’s allegedly dangerous condition, and that causes other than the Leins’ negligence could have contributed to the dock’s failure. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) agreed. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts, holding that Curtis could invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”) to fill in the evidentiary gaps caused by the dock’s destruction. The court, with Justice Debra Stephens writing the opinion, remanded the case for trial.
Sanders v. State, No. 82849-1. Justice Richard Sanders sued the Attorney General's Office, alleging violations of the the Public Records Act by withholding hundreds of requested records under various exemptions claimed without explanation.
In 2004, Sanders sent a request to the Attorney General's Office for all documents related to his visit to the McNeil Island Special Corrections Center and the actions taken by the Commission on Judicial Conduct in response to his visit. Over a hundred responsive documents were withheld or redacted, with no explanation of why the documents fell under the cited statutory exemptions to disclosure.
The trial court found that the AGO had violated the PRA by not providing the required "brief explanation" for how exemptions apply, and that some of the withheld records should have been disclosed. Sanders asked for a $70 per day penalty, the trial court fined the AGO $5 per day for withholding records and $3 per day for not explaining the exemptions; and awarded Sanders 37.5% of his attorney fees. He appeals both the ruling that some of the documents were exempt, and the amounts of the penalties and fees.
The Supreme Court, with Justice Debra Stephens writing, held that the AGO's failure to provide a brief explanation of each exempt record violated the PRA and should be considered as an aggravating factor when setting penalties for withholding nonexempt documents. The court affirmed the trial court’s penalties, and awarded Justice Sanders 25 percent of his costs and attorneys fees.
State v. Montano, No. 82855-8. Jose Montano resisted arrest for assault and officers had to shock him twice before they could handcuff him. On the way to jail, Montano threatened the officer driving him with statements including “I know when you get off work, and I will be waiting for you,” “I'll kick your a**,” and “I know you are afraid, I can see it in your eyes.”
Montano was charged with fourth degree assault (domestic violence) and intimidating a public servant. The trial court dismissed the charge of intimidating a public servant, holding that the threats made did not necessarily show intent to influence a public servant’s actions. The Court of Appeals (Div. 3) reversed, reasoning that a jury could infer that Mr. Montano’s threats were designed to get the officer to change his course of action. The Supreme Court, with Justice Charles Johnson writing, disagreed, reversing the Court of Appeals, holding that Montano’s threats and taunts provided no evidence of any attempt to influence a police officer.
