Mark Haubrich v. The Pizza Specialists, Inc., 49540-6

Background

On August 9, 2012, plaintiff Mark Haubrich sat on an outdoor plastic chair at Brewery City Pizza; the chair arm broke, he fell, and suffered a deep cut.
Restaurant manager saw the broken chair soon after the incident, removed it from service, and stored it; chairs were purchased circa 2004–2005 and replaced in 2014.
Pizza Specialists had no written chair-inspection procedures; employees were orally directed to perform a morning "look/see" when setting up the deck; chairs stored stacked five high in an alcove.
Haubrich disclosed safety investigator Tom Baird as a potential expert shortly before the discovery cutoff; Baird submitted a report opining the chair had exceeded its useful life and the restaurant lacked an effective inspection program.
Pizza Specialists moved for summary judgment arguing no actual or constructive notice and that it exercised reasonable care; the superior court granted summary judgment, finding Baird’s opinions lacked adequate foundation.
Haubrich appealed, arguing the court erred in excluding or discounting Baird’s opinions and in finding no genuine issue on notice or reasonable care; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Baird had a sufficient foundation to offer expert opinions on the chair's structural failure and inspection program	Baird's experience as a safety investigator, consultant, and restaurant owner qualified him to opine that the chair exceeded useful life and inspections were inadequate	Baird lacked relevant qualifications and did not perform structural/material testing or show industry standards supporting his opinions	Court: Baird lacked sufficient foundation; his expertise did not establish qualification to opine on plastic chair structural integrity or inspection standards
Whether Pizza Specialists had actual notice of the dangerous condition	Haubrich: prior reports of cracks/fissures and past chairs taken out of service show notice of chair defects generally	Pizza Specialists: no evidence that staff knew this specific chair was defective; routine morning checks were performed	Court: No actual notice of the specific chair's unsafe condition; testimony concerned other chairs only
Whether Pizza Specialists had constructive notice of the defect	Haubrich: chair’s age, warranty, and Baird’s opinion that it exceeded useful life support that the condition existed long enough to be discoverable	Pizza Specialists: no evidence of how long the chair was unsafe; routine inspections occurred when setting up deck	Court: No evidence showing how long the chair was unsafe; constructive notice not established
Whether Pizza Specialists failed to exercise reasonable care in inspecting/maintaining chairs	Haubrich: absence of a written inspection program and Baird’s critique show lack of reasonable care	Pizza Specialists: employees performed visual "look/see" inspections when setting up; unsafe items were not used	Court: Routine oral inspections were adequate factual evidence of reasonable care; absence of written policy alone insufficient to show breach

Key Cases Cited

Citizens All. for Prop. Rights Legal Fund v. San Juan County, 184 Wn.2d 428 (discussing de novo review of summary judgment)
SentinelC3, Inc. v. Hunt, 181 Wn.2d 127 (inadmissible evidence cannot be considered on summary judgment)
Orris v. Lingley, 172 Wn. App. 61 (CR 56(e) and admissibility requirements for declarations)
Queen City Farms, Inc. v. Cent. Nat’l Ins. Co., 126 Wn.2d 50 (expert opinions require sufficient foundational facts)
Fredrickson v. Bertolino’s Tacoma, Inc., 131 Wn. App. 183 (premises-liability—no notice where inspections occurred and no evidence of specific defect)
Hisle v. Todd Pac. Shipyards Corp., 151 Wn.2d 853 (summary judgment inferences drawn in favor of nonmoving party)