Articles and Publications

Wali Musse’s nightmare started on Halloween six years ago, when he was arrested for a misdemeanor traffic offense. It was not a crime of violence. It was a misdemeanor and should not have resulted in anything more than an uneventful night or two in jail. But the sad truth is that it did. On that fateful night, Wali’s life changed because of a series of individual and policy decisions made by the King County Jail. As a result of that perfect storm of mistakes, of actions taken and not taken, early in the morning hours of November 1, 2015, Wali Musse was brutally assaulted by another inmate shortly after he was booked into the King County Jail.

When I think of the kinds of cases that personal injury attorneys handle with respect to the elderly, the run the gamut, from nursing home abuse cases, to elder abuse cases, to almost any kind of situation. In each one of them, we are seeking to do justice. But then, the other day, a case involving a mother and grandmother, simply broke my heart.

On October 11, 2018, the Washington Supreme Court handed down an historic and momentous decision in State v. Gregory in finding Capital Pun ish ment to be an unconstitutional form of pun ishment in the State of Washing ton. Allen Eugene Gregory, an African-American man had been convicted of the rape and murder of a woman and had been sentenced to death. He was capably and well-represented on his appeal by Neil Fox, a private attorney, and Lila Silverstein, an attorney with the Washington Appellate Project. The ACLU of Washington filed an amicus brief and Jeffery Robinson, its Deputy Legal Director, presented part of the oral argument on the appeal.

Just the other day, I saw a wonderful movie about a lost interview with David Ben Gurion, an original founder, statesman, and prime minister for the State of Israel. As I listened to Ben Gurion talk, I was struck by what a voracious reader he was, what a great thinker he was, and what a courageous person he was to follow his own ideals in the pursuit of something far bigger than himself, i.e., working to establish the State of Israel.

I picked up the phone the other day at my law office and a man who introduced himself as “Kevin Williams” started to tell me about his tale of woe. It went something like this: “I was badly hurt in an accident that occurred in Everett, WA. I was working as a concrete cement finisher, driving my rig, when I was slammed into by a U-Haul truck, being driven by a U-Haul employee, at a high rate of speed. This accident occurred on January 3, 2018. As a result of this violent collision, I suffered a fracture to my spinal cord and have suffered paralysis. I ended up making it back to my home in Port Arthur, Texas, and I have negotiated a settlement with the insurance adjuster for U-Haul for $650,000. But I have some misgivings. They are coming over right now to have me sign the paperwork on the settlement. Can you help me?

A change has befallen the practice in Federal Court regarding how civil discovery is to be conducted. It seems, to some, that a quiet revolution has taken place, and all of us who practice in this realm are deeply affected. In 2015, a sea-change occurred with respect to the Federal Court Rules of Civil Procedure. Joseph Marinelli, among other authors, has chronicled these changes in a nice piece for Business Law Today in its February 2016 edition, put out by the American Bar Association. See Joseph F. Marinelli, “New Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: What’s the Big Idea?”, Business Law Today, February 2016. In my piece, I will be focusing on one of these major changes, which is with respect to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, the Civil Discovery Rule, which has reinstituted the proportionality rule as the primary yardstick for setting up and conducting discovery on civil cases.

This is a two-part series. In the first part, I will be discussing pre-injury release waivers with respect to the claims of children or minors. In the second part, to be published in a future
edition of the Trial News, I plan to discuss pre-injury release waivers as they apply to adults and an emerging trend amongst state courts, which either have restricted the eect of pre-injury release waivers vis-à-vis the claims of adults or have declared them to be invalid under the law. I hope to also explore the potential for change in this area of the law in the State of Washington.

Recently, Dylan Kilpatric, WSAJ EAGLE Member, obtained a tremendous result in a minor impact soft tissue (MIST) case for a very deserving client. This article will explore who Dylan is, his background, his major inuences as a trial attorney, and the recent jury verdict he obtained on an automobile personal injury case led in King County Superior Court.

In the case of Andrew Rutherford v. Jason McKissack et al., hot off the press, the United States Supreme Court, on Monday, June 17, 2013, denied the City of Seattle’s petition for a writ of certiorari to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In eect, the U.S. Supreme Court armed the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which, in a memorandum decision, armed the Jury Verdict, as well as the award of nominal damages and attorney’s fees issued by U.S. District Court Judge Marsha Pechman, involving important limitations regarding when police officers may use a rearm during the course of an investigatory stop (See “Nominal Damages Victory – Section 1983 Police Misconduct Case Against Seattle Police Department Has Value in Teaching Police a Lesson About Important Limitations in Terry Stops,” WSAJ Trial News, March 2013). The plaintiff, Andrew Rutherford, who was represented at the trial level, by Jay Krulewitch and Michael Kolker, had the additional excellent assistance of Leonard Feldman and Sara Berry, of Stoel Rives, who managed and directed the appellate response on behalf of Mr. Rutherford.

In the case of Andrew Rutherford v. Jason McKissack et al., where the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had affirmed the jury verdict and award of nominal damages and attorney’s fees by U.S. District Court Judge Marsha Pechman— involving important limitations regarding when police officers may use a firearm during the course of an investigatory stop (see “Nominal Damages Victory – Section 1983 Police Misconduct Case Against Seattle Police Department Has Value in Teaching Police a Lesson About Important Limitations in Terry Stops,” WSAJ Trial News, March 2013)—the City of Seattle has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Ninth Circuit asking that the U.S. Supreme Court accept review in this matter.

Not all victories are huge victories. But, sometimes, even the smallest victories for our clients have lasting effects and serve to educate various powers that there are limits to the exercise of their authority. Justice comes in all shapes and sizes. And, nowhere is there more dramatic proof of that statement than the case of Andrew Rutherford v. Jason McKissack, et al., where an award of nominal damages taught the Seattle Police Department that limits exist on how they can conduct investigatory stops and what kind of force they are entitled to use when detaining occupants of a vehicle following a traffic stop involving minor misdemeanor offenses.