Virginia Mehlert v. Baseball Of Seattle, Inc.
75839-0
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 30, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Virginia Mehlert fell and struck her head while leaving the Mariners Team Store in Seattle; she cannot recall how or precisely where she lost footing.
- Store entrance had three concrete steps with a 37-inch plywood ramp placed over the middle; ramp edges raised 1" by 2"; no handrails were installed on the ramp or stairs.
- Engineer opined the ramp violated code requiring handrails on both sides; parties conceded duty and that the ramp created a dangerous condition for summary judgment purposes.
- Human factors expert Dr. Erin Harley opined Mehlert was likely at the top step when she fell, the ramp effectively split the stairs into two narrow (≈19.5") stairways, and the absence of handrails materially increased trip-and-fall risk.
- Harley cited studies showing handrails dramatically reduce fall rates and that people can and do grasp handrails during perturbations even without direct visual fixation.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to defendants for lack of causation; the Court of Appeals reversed, finding Harley’s testimony and the other evidence create a genuine issue of proximate causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation: whether lack of handrails proximately caused Mehlert's injuries | Mehlert: expert opinion shows absence of handrails made egress unsafe and that she likely could have grabbed a rail to prevent or lessen the fall | Defendants: plaintiff cannot remember how/where she fell, so causation is speculative | Reversed: expert testimony and circumstantial evidence create a triable issue of proximate cause |
| Standard for summary judgment in negligence causation context | Plaintiff: circumstantial expert evidence suffices to raise genuine issue | Defendants: lack of direct memory means only speculation exists | Court: causation usually for jury; only dispose when connection is purely speculative — not here |
| Role of code noncompliance and breach in causation | Plaintiff: code-required handrails and noncompliant ramp support breach and causal link | Defendants: concede dangerous condition but dispute causal effect on plaintiff’s fall | Court: conceded breach and code violation bolster reasonable inference of causation |
Key Cases Cited
- Mahoney v. Shinpoch, 107 Wn.2d 679 (Wash. 1987) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Hernandez v. W. Farmers Ass'n, 76 Wn.2d 422 (Wash. 1969) (probability test for proximate cause)
- Attwood v. Albertson's Food Ctrs., Inc., 92 Wn. App. 326 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998) (definition of proximate cause)
- Marshall v. Bally's Pacwest, Inc., 94 Wn. App. 372 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999) (summary judgment proper where causation is mere speculation)
- Little v. Countrywood Homes, Inc., 132 Wn. App. 777 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006) (causation normally a jury question; dismissal when only speculative)
- Moore v. Hagge, 158 Wn. App. 137 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010) (causation becomes question of law only if connection is too speculative)