 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Roppo v. Motor Cargo Inc.9/21/1998
Source of Appeal: Appeal from Superior Court of King County Docket No: 95-2-24192-1 Judgement or order under review Date filed: 03/17/97 judge signing: Hon. Robert Alsdorf
Judges Authored by Susan R. Agid concurring Faye C. Kennedy William W. Baker
Motor Cargo, Inc. appeals the Judgement entered in favor of Frank Roppo in this personal injury action. Roppo was injured when he was run over by a "hostler truck" or "yard goat" as he was walking across the truck terminal where he works. Motor Cargo contends that the trial court should have admitted evidence of lighting standards for truck terminals and of the amount paid by the Department of Labor & Industries for medical treatment. It also argues the court improperly admitted evidence of the driver's lack of training and commercial license and failed to properly instruct the jury on proximate cause. We find no error or abuse of discretion and affirm.
FACTS
Early on the morning of February 1, 1993, Frank Roppo was walking across the truck yard where he has worked for 15 years when he was run over by a yard goat backing rapidly in the pre-dawn darkness. Roppo, an employee of NationsWay Transport Services, Inc., was severely injured and unable to work for almost a year. Michael Unterwegner, an employee of Motor Cargo, Inc., was driving the yard goat at the time of the accident. In September 1995, Roppo filed this personal injury action against Unterwegner and Motor Cargo alleging that Unterwegner was negligent in driving the yard goat and Motor Cargo was negligent in training and hiring its employees. Claiming that the cause of the accident was inadequate lighting in the truck terminal and Roppo's inattention, Motor Cargo filed a third party claim against the property owner, Temkin Property. But Temkin Property was dismissed on summary Judgement when the trial court determined that, under the terms of its lease with NationsWay, it was not responsible for lighting conditions. NationsWay, as Roppo's employer, was also immune from suit.
After Temkin Property was dismissed from the case, Roppo moved to exclude all testimony of lighting conditions on the ground that the entity responsible for lighting was not a party to the action. The trial court denied the motion but limited the evidence to testimony about light levels and lighting conditions. It directed the parties to avoid comments tending to suggest that a nonparty was to blame for lighting conditions.
Motor Cargo moved in limine to exclude evidence of both Unterwegner's driving history and Motor Cargo's failure to provide adequate training and testing. The trial court granted Motor Cargo's motions in substantial part. But it allowed testimony about Unterwegner's lack of testing or training to the extent it contributed to any failure on his part to use reasonable caution in backing the yard goat on the night of the accident.
At the Conclusion of trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Roppo, finding him 20% negligent and Unterwegner 80% negligent. It found that Unterwegner's negligence was a proximate cause of the accident.
Discussion
Lighting Conditions
Motor Cargo first contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it ex-cluded testimony by defense expert, Dr. Conrad Kraft, that the truck yard was 400 times darker than it should have been under "accepted lighting standards." But the record reflects there is no stated standard for truck terminals in the Illuminating Engineering Society Lighting Handbook, the lighting standards manual relied on by Dr. Kraft. The trial court did allow him to testify at length about visual perception in low light conditions. It als
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.
|
|