Around The Firm

Michael A. Patterson and Patricia K. Buchanan won a defense verdict in Johnson v. Catholic Community Services. Plaintiffs brought a "wrongful adoption" claim, alleging that had the adoption agency, Catholic Community Services, provided all records on the nine-year old child, they would never have adopted her. After a three-week trial in Thurston County Superior Court, the jury agreed with Mike and Pat’s defense that regardless of what information was provided, the plaintiffs would have adopted the young girl, and therefore any alleged failure to provide records was not the proximate cause of plaintiffs’ alleged injuries. … Tammy L. Williams improved her client’s position on a trial de novo in Hutson v. Costco. On appeal from the maximum $35,000 arbitrator’s award, the jury awarded $15,000 to the plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed a shard of chrome from a Costco cart handle imbedded into her thumb. She described the pain as worse than both of her childbirths. Tammy also prevailed on the co-defendant cart manufacturer’s motion for attorney fees and costs following the trial.

Kenneth E. Hepworth won summary judgment of dismissal in Connely v. Mombasa Coffee Co. v. Olympic Springs. Olympic Springs sold a water-purification system to Mombasa Coffee Company, installed it at Mombasa’s business, and thereafter regularly serviced it. In 1999, a pressure valve on the purification system failed, causing water to flood Connely’s business. Connely sued Mombasa for damage to his inventory and for business interruption. Mombasa brought a third-party complaint against Olympic Springs, alleging negligence, breach of contract, contribution, and indemnity. Ken moved for summary judgment of dismissal on behalf of Olympic Springs because the purchase contract specifically excluded the damages that plaintiff claimed and because there was no proof that Olympic Springs was negligent. The court agreed with Ken and dismissed the third-party complaint. … Ken Hepworth also won summary judgment of dismissal in Hall v. Process Engineering. The case arose from the failure of a water heating system at a college. A connector failed, causing scalding water to flood the mechanical room and other parts of the building. Plaintiffs were maintenance workers at the college who suffered severe burns while investigating the flood. Plaintiffs sued the manufacturer of the connector, the mechanical contractor, the distributor of the connector, the company that monitored the system, and Ken’s client, Process Engineering, the mechanical engineer. The court agreed with Ken that there was no evidence that Process Engineering was negligent in preparing drawings and specifications for the project. The court also agreed that even though Process Engineering was responsible for final inspection of the mechanical contractor’s work the terms of the construction contract did not impose liability for any fault of the mechanical contractor.