Kristina Cosgrave, V. Jeanette Stofleth, 83183-6

On June 12, 2019, plaintiff Jeanette Stofleth was struck by a vehicle driven by Kristina Cosgrave while cutting through the lower level parking garage of the 733 Lakeside condominium to reach an adjacent park; she suffered serious leg and hip injuries.
Stofleth sued Lakeside Condominium Association for negligence in design, construction, and maintenance—asserting inadequate sight lines, lack of designated pedestrian pathways, and absence of mirrors or electronic detection systems.
Lakeside moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted the motion and dismissed Lakeside; Stofleth appealed.
Plaintiff’s expert, civil engineer Gary Norris, inspected the property twice, took four photos (none of the precise accident site), made no sight-line measurements or diagrams, and opined the garage lacked adequate pedestrian routing and safety devices.
The garage complied with building and zoning codes in effect when constructed (circa 1968), there was no evidence of prior similar accidents, and Lakeside made no substantial renovations requiring new code compliance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duty to provide sight lines, walkways, mirrors/detection	Lakeside had a duty to design/maintain the garage to protect pedestrians (provide sight lines, designated pathways, mirrors/electronic detection)	No code required these measures; no special duty shown; garage complied with historic codes	No duty shown; summary judgment affirmed
Sufficiency of expert evidence to create genuine issue	Norris’s testimony shows the garage was unsafe and lacked reasonable safety measures	Norris’s opinions were speculative, lacked measurements, and photos did not show accident site	Expert opinion insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact
Whether extraordinary circumstances (Boeing/Ruff) imposed heightened duty	Extraordinary measures may be required where conditions and notice justify them	No history of prior accidents or notice; private garage differs from public roadway in Boeing	Boeing/Ruff distinguishable; no notice or inherently dangerous condition shown
Effect of code compliance on negligence claim	Compliance with old codes doesn’t preclude a duty to adopt additional safety measures	Compliance with the codes in effect when built supports absence of a specific duty	Compliance and lack of contrary evidence defeat plaintiff’s burden

Strauss v. Premera Blue Cross, 194 Wn.2d 296 (standard of review for summary judgment)
Pedroza v. Bryant, 101 Wn.2d 226 (elements required to prove negligence)
Kamla v. Space Needle Corp., 147 Wn.2d 114 (possessor’s duty to invitees and Restatement §343 framework)
Boeing Co. v. State, 89 Wn.2d 442 (extraordinary measures may be required where public roadway, notice, and accident history create heightened duty)
Ruff v. King County, 125 Wn.2d 697 (warning devices may be required only where road condition is inherently dangerous or deceptive)