Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffnegligencetrialtestimonysummary judgment
plaintiffnegligenceappealtrialtestimonysummary judgment

Related Cases

Harriman v. Maddocks, 518 A.2d 1027
View Case »
McDougall v. Dunn, 468 F.2d 468, 16 Fed.R.Serv.2d 609
View Case »
Rodriguez v. Disner, 688 F.3d 645, 2012-2 Trade Cases P 78,006, 2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,142
View Case »
Kentucky Bar Ass’n v. Keesee, 973 S.W.2d 842
View Case »
Haeger v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 813 F.3d 1233, 93 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1519, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1659
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Berry v. King County, 19 Wash.App.2d 583, 501 P.3d 150

Facts

On September 16, 2016, Virginia Berry was sitting in the driver's seat of her parked car when a King County Metro bus clipped her driver's side mirror. Berry alleged that the collision caused her to hit her head on the window, leading to a concussion diagnosed six days later. The County argued that video evidence showed no appreciable movement of her vehicle during the collision, and expert testimony supported this claim.

On the afternoon of September 16, 2016, Berry was sitting in the driver's seat of her parked car on Madison Street near Seattle University with her daughter, Katherine. At approximately 1:45 p.m., a King County Metro bus drove by and clipped her driver's side mirror and scraped the corner of her front bumper. The collision was recorded by the bus's camera system.

Issue

Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment for King County by determining that Berry failed to establish causation for her claimed injuries?

Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment for King County by determining that Berry failed to establish causation for her claimed injuries?

Rule

To prevail on a negligence claim, a plaintiff must show the existence of a duty, a breach of that duty, a resulting injury, and that the breach was the proximate cause of the injury.

To prevail on her negligence claim, Berry must show (1) the existence of a duty to the plaintiff, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) a resulting injury, and (4) that the breach of duty was the proximate cause of the injury.

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented, including video footage and expert testimony, which indicated that the bus's impact did not cause any significant movement of Berry's vehicle. Berry's testimony was found to be contradicted by the video evidence, and she did not provide expert testimony to counter the County's claims. The court concluded that no reasonable juror could accept Berry's version of events given the compelling evidence to the contrary.

The court analyzed the evidence presented, including video footage and expert testimony, which indicated that the bus's impact did not cause any significant movement of Berry's vehicle. Berry's testimony was found to be contradicted by the video evidence, and she did not provide expert testimony to counter the County's claims. The court concluded that no reasonable juror could accept Berry's version of events given the compelling evidence to the contrary.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of King County, concluding that Berry failed to establish a physical connection between the bus striking her car and her claimed concussion injury.

The court granted summary judgment, and Berry appealed.

Who won?

King County prevailed in the case because the court found that Berry did not provide sufficient evidence to establish causation for her injuries, as supported by video evidence and expert testimony.

King County prevailed in the case because the court found that Berry did not provide sufficient evidence to establish causation for her injuries, as supported by video evidence and expert testimony.

You must be