 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hansen v. City of Everett2/8/1999
Bruce and Rebecca Hansen appeal two orders granting partial summary Judgement to the City of Everett, contending that the trial courts erred by ruling that (1) their LEOFF (Law Enforcement Officers and Fire Fighter's Retirement System) "excess damages" negligence claim is subject to comparative fault, and (2) comparative fault is applied to any amount they recover using the "net damages" rule, i.e., by subtracting the percentage of damages attributable to comparative fault from the total damages proven and then offsetting the LEOFF benefits received and receivable. We granted discretionary review to resolve these two legal issues.
Under the plain language of LEOFF's "excess damages" provision and the comparative fault statute, comparative fault principles apply to the Hansens' "excess damages" negligence claim. In a cause of action for "excess damages," the trier of fact must calculate the total amount payable, then deduct the benefits paid and payable under LEOFF to determine the amount of the excess damages. After the offset, the percentage of comparative fault attributable to the plaintiff, if any, is apportioned and the recoverable damages reduced. Thus, the trial court erred by concluding that the percentage of comparative fault is applied before the statutory offset. Accordingly, we affirm in part, and reverse in part.
FACTS
In December 1991, Bruce Hansen, a fire fighter employed by the City of Everett, was injured when he fell down a stairway attached to a City building. As a disabled fire fighter, Hansen qualified for LEOFF benefits under RCW 41.26. In addition, he was eligible to "have a cause of action against {his} governmental employer as otherwise provided by law, for any excess of damages over the amount received or receivable under {LEOFF}" if his injury resulted from the intentional or negligent act or omission of a governmental employer. RCW 41.26.281.
In November 1994, Hansen and his wife, Rebecca Hansen, filed a complaint against the City under RCW 41.26.281, alleging negligence in its failure to protect persons on its property and in its failure to maintain the property. In response, the City alleged that the Hansens' damages were "solely and proximately caused by or contributed to by their own contributory fault, thus barring or diminishing their claims."
On January 10, 1997, Judge Larry McKeeman ordered partial summary Judgement to the City, concluding "that as a matter of law comparative negligence applies to this case," and ordering the question of comparative negligence to be submitted to the trier of fact. On March 6, 1997, Judge Anita Farris ordered partial summary Judgement to the City, ruling that "at trial of this matter the 'net damages rule' be applied to any comparative negligence of Bruce Hansen found by the jury." This court granted the Hansens' petition for discretionary review of these orders.
ANALYSIS
"An appellate court reviews de novo an order granting summary Judgement and, thus, engages in the same inquiry as the trial court." Hill v. Dep't of Transp., 76 Wn. App. 631, 637, 887 P.2d 476 (1995).
I. Comparative Fault
The Hansens contend that that principles of comparative fault do not apply to LEOFF's "excess damages" provision, RCW 41.26.281. The City, on the other hand, maintains that the plain language of this provision and of the comparative fault provision, RCW 4.22, mandate that comparative fault principles be applied to LEOFF's "excess damages" provision. We agree with the City.
"Absent ambiguity, a statute's meaning must be derived from the wording of the statute itself without judicial construction o
Page 1 2 3 4 Washington Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|