Facts

The case arose from a judgment in the Superior Court for King County, No. 03-2-40781-0, entered July 30, 2004, by Judge Mary Roberts. The plaintiff appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant.

Analysis

Issue #1

Issue

Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment to the defendant by concluding there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendant had constructive notice of the hazardous condition?

Legal Rule

Under Washington law, summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law (CR 56(c)). For premises liability in slip-and-fall cases, a plaintiff must show that the owner had actual or constructive notice of the unsafe condition.

Rule Analysis

The appellate court reviewed the record de novo and determined that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact regarding constructive notice, making summary judgment improper.

Conclusion

Yes, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. The judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.