Billy Colburn v. David J. Trees, Et Ux.
74366-0
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 17, 2016Background
- On Aug. 23, 2011, Colburn (northbound) made a left turn across southbound lanes of 23rd Avenue East in Seattle and was struck by Trees (southbound) while both entered the intersection on a green light. There were no designated turn lanes.
- Trees initially was in the left lane behind a bus, changed to the right-hand (curb) lane before the intersection because the bus was preparing to turn; the bus at least partially obstructed views.
- Trees testified he signaled ~20 feet before changing lanes and was traveling roughly 35–40 mph in a 20 mph zone; Colburn never observed Trees' turn signal or Trees in the curb lane prior to impact.
- Colburn sued for negligence, alleging multiple traffic code violations and arguing Trees’ conduct (speeding, late signaling, inattentiveness, swerving right) proximately caused the collision; trial court granted summary judgment for Trees.
- The Court of Appeals reviews de novo and affirms, finding Colburn failed to raise genuine issues of material fact on breach and proximate cause and that the deception doctrine does not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Trees' speeding was a proximate cause | Trees was speeding (35–40 mph) and that reduced reaction time, causing the crash | Favored driver’s speed is not proximate cause if vehicle was where entitled to be and collision unavoidable despite lawful speed | No; Colburn produced no evidence of Trees' point of notice or that speed changed the ability to avoid collision |
| Whether late/absent turn signal was causative | If Trees signaled 100 ft earlier Colburn would have seen it and waited | Colburn never observed the signal; no evidence he would have seen a properly timed signal given obstructions and other traffic | No; speculative—no evidence Colburn would have seen an earlier signal or altered course |
| Whether Trees changed lanes or drove inattentively/negligently | Trees changed lanes unsafely and/or was inattentive and thus breached duty | Evidence shows Trees completed a safe lane change; witness declaration is conclusory and speculative | No; lane change and attentiveness not shown to be negligent as a matter of law or factually supported |
| Whether deception doctrine negates Colburn’s disfavored-driver negligence | Trees’ speed, position, and signaling deceived Colburn into thinking a left turn was safe, invoking deception doctrine | Deception requires either being actually deceived after seeing the favored car or obstruction of view by nonmovable object; bus was movable and Colburn saw Trees before turning | No; neither form of deception applies—obstruction was by a vehicle that reasonably could be expected to move and Colburn wasn’t shown to have been deceived by Trees’ conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard on failure of proof)
- Hertog v. City of Seattle, 138 Wn.2d 265 (elements of negligence; duty vs. factual questions)
- Channel v. Mills, 77 Wn. App. 268 (favored driver's speed not proximate cause if vehicle entitled to be where it was)
- Whitchurch v. McBride, 63 Wn. App. 272 (point of notice concept for disfavored-driver collisions)
- Mondor v. Rhoades, 63 Wn.2d 159 (deception standard—must be tantamount to entrapment)
- Ward v. Zeugner, 64 Wn.2d 570 ("clear stretch" obstruction rule for deception doctrine)