Legal Opinion · Dissent

Degel v. Majestic Mobile Manor, Inc.

Washington Supreme Court

Decided April 18, 1996No. 62312-1Published

1DissentDurham, C.J.

(dissenting) — The majority opinion errs in two significant ways. First, as a matter of stare decisis, the majority misconstrues existing cases directly on point. Second, as a matter of public policy, the majority creates a universe in which our precious natural resources will be barricaded from public access. While I share the majority’s concern for the tragic near drowning of Jason Farris, the suggested remedy is simply too extreme. We should maintain our existing law in this area and leave it to the appropriate government agencies to educate the public on the dangers natural bodies of…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Tincani v. Inland Empire Zoological SocietyWashington Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Peters v. BowmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Cope v. DoeIllinois Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Casper v. Charles F. Smith & Son, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1989
  5. Barnhart v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1916

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API