WADE v. KING, 28082-5-II (Wash.App. 6-10-2003)

No. 28082-5-IIThe Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two.
Filed: June 10, 2003 DO NOT CITE. SEE RAP 10.4(h). UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from Superior Court of Lewis County Docket No: 00-2-00560-0 Judgment or order under review Date filed: 10/26/2001

Counsel for Appellant(s), Stephen Thomas Carmick, Attorney at Law, 122 S Market Blvd, P.O. Box 670, Chehalis, WA 98532-0670.

Paul Joseph Dugaw, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 855, Centralia, WA 98531-0855.

Counsel for Respondent(s), Teri M. Dettmer, Attorney at Law, Bennett Bigelow Leedom PS, 999 3rd Ave Ste 2150, Seattle, WA 98104-4036.

Daniel W. Ferm, Williams Kastner Gibbs PLLC, 601 Union St. Ste 4100, Seattle, WA 98101-2380.

Mary H. Spillane, Attorney at Law, 4100 Two Union Sq, 601 Union St, Seattle, WA 98101-2341.

MORGAN, J.

Janet Wade appeals the summary dismissal of her personal injury claim. We affirm.

On May 15, 1997, Ms. Wade was in a wheelchair due to a stroke. Her husband, Donald Wade, took her to Dr. James King’s office for a dental appointment. They had not asked about, or been told about, wheelchair access. A sign on the side of the building read, `Please Use Front Door.’[1] As the sign implied, the office has front and rear entrances. The front entrance has one five-inch step that leads to a concrete porch. The porch slopes away from the building, two inches over a span of four and a half feet. A screen door swings outward onto the porch, while the main door swings inward to the reception area.

The office’s rear entrance does not have steps. According to Mr. Wade, it was blocked by two metal garbage cans. It did not look like an entrance for customers.

Mr. Wade wheeled Ms. Wade to the front entrance. He turned the wheelchair backwards to lift it up the step. He put the wheelchair to one side of the screen door while he opened that door and locked it in place. He then opened the main door and turned to push Ms. Wade inside. As he turned, she wheeled herself forward and one of her wheels went off the step. The wheelchair tipped, and Ms. Wade was injured.

In May 2000, Ms. Wade sued Dr. King, his spouse, and Mr. Wade for negligence. In August 2001, Dr. King moved for summary judgment, asserting that Ms. Wade could not prove that the porch involved an unreasonable risk of harm or that he knew about any such risk. The trial court granted the motion, reasoning that the Wades had known of the obvious risks of taking a wheelchair onto the porch. Ms. Wade then filed this appeal.

The question on appeal is whether the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to Dr. King. We review de novo,[2] taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Ms. Wade.[3]

Washington follows the Restatement (Second) of Torts with respect to the duty that a possessor of land owes to a business invitee.[4]
Restatement sec. 343 provides:

A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to his invitees by a condition on the land if, but only if, he
(a) knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, and
(b) should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, and
(c) fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger.[5]

Thus, a possessor of land is liable for failing to exercise reasonable care when (1) a condition exists that involves an unreasonable risk of harm to the invitee, (2) the possessor knows of or in the exercise of reasonable care should know of the condition, and (3) the possessor should expect the invitee not to discover, realize, or protect against the danger.

In this case, there is no evidence of a condition that involves an unreasonable risk of harm. The size and boundaries of the porch, including the edge of the stair, were obvious to all concerned. That the screen door swung outward was normal and readily observable. Porches generally slope slightly for drainage. We decline to hold that an ordinary porch like this one involves an unreasonable risk of harm.

Nor is there evidence that Dr. King should have expected the Wades not to discover and protect against the difficulties of traversing the porch in a wheelchair. Given that the nature of the porch was obvious, a possessor of the land could only have thought that a person coming onto it, whether on foot or in a wheelchair, would realize and protect against the possibility of falling off.

We need not discuss Ms. Wade’s remaining arguments, for nothing in them affects our conclusions. Holding that the record taken in the light most favorable to Ms. Wade lacks sufficient evidence to meet the requirements of Restatement sec. 343, we conclude that the trial court did not err. Affirmed.

A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.

SEINFELD, J. and HUNT, C.J., concur.