Legal Opinion

Ma'ele v. Arrington

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided March 29, 2002No. 25015-2-IIPublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtArmstrong, C.J.

The trial court found Florine Arrington solely at fault for a car accident she had with Duke Ma’ele. Several chiropractic doctors testified that the accident injured Ma’ele. But a biomechanical engineer said that he would not expect a person to be injured in such a low-energy collision. The jury found that the accident did not proximately cause Ma’ele’s injuries and awarded no damages. On appeal, Ma’ele argues that the evidence does not support the verdict; he also contends the court erred in allowing the engineer to testify because (1) he was not qualified *560to testify about injuries, and (2)…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
  2. Washington State Physicians Insurance Exchange & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Burnside v. Simpson Paper Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Brown v. Spokane County Fire Protection District No. 1Washington Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Palmer v. JensenWashington Supreme Court · 1997

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Berryman v. MetcalfCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
  2. Johnston-Forbes v. MatsunagaWashington Supreme Court · 2014
  3. Stedman v. CooperCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2012
  4. Wilson v. RiversSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2004
  5. L.M. by and Through Dussault v. HamiltonWashington Supreme Court · 2019

11 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