Margie Lockner v. Pierce County
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtLee, J.
¶ 1 Margie Lockner appeals the superior court’s summary judgment dismissal of her claims based on the recreational immunity statute, RCW 4.24.210. Lockner argues that the superior court improperly applied the recreational immunity statute because (1) she provided evidence that the place of her injury was used for transportation purposes and (2) she brought a negligence claim rather than a premises liability claim. This appeal requires us to determine whether Camicia v. Howard S. Wright Construction Co. 1 limits recreational immunity to land opened solely for recreational purposes or whether…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Camicia v. Howard S. Wright Construction Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2014
- Citizens Alliance for Property Rights Legal Fund v. San Juan CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2015
- Tennyson v. Plum Creek Timber Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1994
- Riksem v. City of SeattleCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1987
- Curtis v. LeinWashington Supreme Court · 2010
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Lockner v. Pierce Cnty.Washington Supreme Court · 2018
- Carl W. Schwartz v. King CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2020
- Lockner v. Pierce CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2018