Legal Opinion

Birdsall v. Abrams

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided February 15, 2001No. 19242-3-IIIPublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

  1. Folsom v. Burger KingWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Folsom v. Burger KingWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Hutchins v. 1001 Fourth Avenue AssociatesWashington Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Iwai v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Iwai v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1996

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Alexander v. MitchellSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2007
  2. Birdsall v. AbramsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001
  3. Jackson v. The Boeing CompanyDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2022

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

Powered by the Exa API