Legal Opinion

Cho v. City of Seattle

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided October 20, 2014No. 70727-2-IPublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

¶ 1 A party must provide sufficient competent evidence to establish the essential elements of the action or, at the very least, a genuine issue of material facts as to those elements. Here, an inattentive drunk driver struck the plaintiff and several pedestrians in an unmarked crosswalk. The plaintiff’s assertion that had the city of Seattle (City) installed a pedestrian island, she would have stopped and waited for all oncoming traffic to proceed before continuing to cross the street is speculation that does not establish proximate cause. Further, under the circumstances here, where traffic…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Young v. Key Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Hartley v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Schooley v. Pinch's Deli Market, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Schooley v. Pinch's Deli Market, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1998

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Monique Messenger v. Shannon L. WhitemarshCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2020
  2. Bessie Williams v. First TransitCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2015
  3. Cho v. City of SeattleCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
  4. Cho v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 2015
  5. David Gray, Estate Of Julian David Gray-florance, Apps. v. City Of Seattle, Resp.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2019

9 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