John Edwards, et ux v. Colville Motor Sports, Inc.
34449-5
| Wash. Ct. App. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- In 2010 John Edwards purchased an ATV from Colville Motor Sports (CMS); he was inexperienced and reviewed the owner’s manual and video warnings about hill climbing and not using sudden throttle on inclines.
- In May 2011 Edwards returned to CMS to pick up the ATV after service; CMS’s parking lot sloped and there was no level loading area or loading dock.
- A CMS employee (Mr. Harris) positioned the ATV a few feet behind Edwards’ truck and helped attach 6-foot ramps; Edwards asked whether he should turn the truck to reduce ramp angle and Harris said they load there all the time and it wouldn’t make much difference.
- Edwards attempted to ride the ATV up the ramps, lost momentum at the tailgate, hit the throttle, the ATV flipped backward and severely injured him; Edwards incurred major medical expenses and long‑term impairments.
- The Edwardses sued for premises liability and general negligence; the jury found CMS negligent but also found that Edwards impliedly assumed the risk; the trial court dismissed the general negligence claim as a matter of law and entered judgment for CMS.
- On appeal the court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding the trial court erred by (1) instructing on implied primary assumption of risk and (2) dismissing the general negligence claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly instructed on implied primary assumption of risk | The instruction was improper because CMS’s actions (sloped lot, ATV placement, Harris’s assurances) increased the risk and the proper doctrine is implied unreasonable assumption of risk or comparative fault | Edwards knew the general risk (manual warnings, visible slope) and voluntarily accepted the risk, so implied primary assumption of risk bars recovery | Reversed: instruction on implied primary assumption of risk was erroneous; facts did not show Edwards consented to relieve CMS of its duty; contributory fault instruction was sufficient |
| Whether the general negligence claim should have been dismissed as a matter of law | Harris’s affirmative assurances created a separate duty (misfeasance) distinct from premises liability and supported a general negligence claim | CMS contended its duty was only premises‑based and McKown precludes a separate general duty | Reversed: dismissal was error; a jury could find Harris assumed a duty by giving misleading assurances, supporting a general negligence claim |
| Whether helmet evidence was improperly admitted (motion in limine) | Edwards argued helmet absence was irrelevant to causation and mitigation without expert proof | CMS argued opening remarks and testimony opened the door and that lay jurors could infer helmet relevance to severity of injury | Not reached on appeal (moot) after reversal and remand |
| Whether special verdict form was inconsistent/confusing | Edwards argued inconsistencies between findings (CMS negligent but plaintiff assumed risk) required relief | CMS relied on jury’s findings that addressed different actors/risks | Not reached on appeal (moot) after reversal and remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Gregoire v. City of Oak Harbor, 170 Wn.2d 628 (discusses assumption of risk principles and jury instruction review)
- Kirk v. Washington State Univ., 109 Wn.2d 448 (explains express and implied primary assumption of risk as consent negating duty)
- McKown v. Simon Property Group, 182 Wn.2d 752 (addresses landowner duty framework; does not bar separate negligence claims where supported)
- Gleason v. Cohen, 192 Wn. App. 788 (distinguishes assumption of risk categories and effects on recovery)
- Alston v. Blythe, 88 Wn. App. 26 (affirmed that misdirections creating duty can support negligence and that implied primary assumption may not apply)
- Dorr v. Big Creek Wood Products, 84 Wn. App. 420 (identifies the relevant risk as defendant’s negligent directions rather than the original workplace hazard)
- Erie v. White, 92 Wn. App. 297 (example where plaintiff assumed the risk of defendant’s negligent provision of equipment)
- Jessee v. City Council of Dayton, 173 Wn. App. 410 (illustrates implied primary assumption where plaintiff knowingly used a negligently constructed stairway)