Jason Sleater v. Richard Griffith I, et ux, 37336-3

Sleater, a general contractor, was banned from the Griffiths’ construction site by letter after contract disputes.
His CENTURION CONSTRUCTION sign at the site was defaced; Sleater sought to retrieve it at ~7:30 p.m. after consulting his lawyer, who said he had notified the Griffiths’ lawyer.
While it was dark, Sleater fell into a long, deep trench excavated by Peck & Peck and suffered severe injuries.
Sleater sued the Griffiths, Peck & Peck, and others; Peck & Peck moved for summary judgment arguing Sleater was a trespasser and they owed no duty.
Sleater argued on summary judgment that (a) he might have been privileged to enter under a Restatement private-necessity (emergency) license and (b) it was unclear whether he was on the Griffith property.
Trial court denied continuance and granted summary judgment for Peck & Peck; Sleater appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a private-necessity (emergency) privilege should be recognized/applied	Sleater: Restatement §§197 & 345 create a privilege to enter to prevent serious harm; therefore he would be treated as a licensee, not a trespasser	Peck & Peck: Even if such a privilege exists, Sleater was not facing an emergency and did not qualify	Court: Did not decide whether Washington should adopt the privilege, but held that even if adopted, it would not apply because no emergency and it was unreasonable to enter a dark site without illumination
Whether Sleater was on Griffith property (trespasser status)	Sleater: Raised doubt in opposition and suggested survey might be needed to establish property line	Peck & Peck: Complaint and evidence show the fall occurred on the Subject Property; Sleater presented no competent evidence to rebut	Court: Sleater failed to produce evidence creating a genuine dispute; he was treated as a trespasser and summary judgment was proper

Lybbert v. Grant County, 141 Wn.2d 29 (2000) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Tincani v. Inland Empire Zoological Soc’y, 124 Wn.2d 121 (1994) (elements of negligence and duty are threshold legal questions)
Ochampaugh v. City of Seattle, 91 Wn.2d 514 (1979) (landowner generally owes no duty to trespasser except to refrain from willful or wanton harm)
Seven Gables Corp. v. MGM/UA Entm’t Co., 106 Wn.2d 1 (1986) (opposing party cannot rely on speculation to defeat summary judgment)
Vallandigham v. Clover Park Sch. Dist. No. 400, 154 Wn.2d 16 (2005) (summary judgment proper where reasonable persons could reach but one conclusion)
Beebe v. Moses, 113 Wn. App. 464 (2002) (entrant status—trespasser/licensee/invitee—governs premises duty)
West v. Faurbo, 66 Ill. App. 3d 815 (1978) (illustrative out-of-state application of private-necessity privilege)