Birdsall v. Abrams
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.
This slip-and-fall case raises two questions. First, does a landowner who clears a portion of a public sidewalk owe a duty of care to a pedestrian who falls on the uncleared portion? No. Ainey v. Rialto Amusement Co., 135 Wash. 56, 58, 236 P. 801 (1925). Second, does a city ordinance requiring landowners to clear the public sidewalks adjacent to their land or face possible jail time provide injured pedestrians with a tort action against violating landowners? It does not. Gardner v. Kendrick, 7 Wn. App. 852, 853-54, 503 P.2d 134 (1972). We therefore affirm the summary dismissal of Raymond D.…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Folsom v. Burger KingWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Folsom v. Burger KingWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Hutchins v. 1001 Fourth Avenue AssociatesWashington Supreme Court · 1991
- Iwai v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1996
- Iwai v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1996
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Alexander v. MitchellSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2007
- Birdsall v. AbramsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001
- Jackson v. The Boeing CompanyDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2022