Aviation Law
Products Liability
Persons injured by dangerous or defective products may be compensated for their injuries without having to prove the manufacturer was negligent when it designed and manufactured the product. The injured consumer need only prove that the product is dangerous to an extent beyond that which is contemplated by the ordinary consumer. Otherwise, an injured consumer may face the difficult task of seeking information from a large manufacturer with unlimited resources for resisting liability for its defective products.
Recent Products Liability Cases
Palacios v. Honda. To date, this is the state's largest personal injury jury verdict (16.35 million dollars). An interesting issue in the case was the alleged spoliation of evidence by Honda. Prior to Palacios. In their discovery, Honda had many blurred pictures and some that were even blacked out at exactly at the critical spot (e.g. the point of maximum roof crush on the rollover tests). Based on this and other issues that occurred during the discovery phase of litigation, the trial judge recognized the new tort of spoilation of evidence and ordered a separate trial on that issue alone. Trial lawyer: Sim Osborn.
Colton v. Benwil. Mrs. Colton's husband, an auto mechanic specializing in the repair of Mercedes and BMW vehicles, owned his own repair shop which had a small automobile lift. One day in December, 1996, just after Christmas, the car under which he was working fell partially off the lift and crushed the decedent. He was found still alive by the laundry delivery man. When the fire department arrived, rescue was delayed for fear that the car would fall the rest of the way off the lift and kill one or more of the fire fighters in addition to the mechanic. Finally, the decedent was rescued, but he died later that day from massive internal injuries. Mrs. Colton sued the manufacturer of the lift under the Washington Product Liability Act, alleging that the lift was not safe as designed. The plaintiff's expert testified that the configuration of the arms allowed the lift to be loaded unevenly. When so loaded, the arms could swing out from under the car simply by having the mechanic tug on a belt or bolt on the car. The case was settled at mediation for a confidential amount. Lawyers: Sim Osborn and Susan Machler.
Marin v. Ripley Stainless. This case involved a stainless steel component of a large beer brewing system. The component was a viewing grant, a cylindrical vessel approximately two feet long, closed by stainless steel on one end and a flat piece of glass on the other end. Beer would flow into the grant via pipes where it could be seen by the brewers and the public while on tours of the brewery. The grant was also cleaned by forcing hot water through the pipes and into the grant. To pressurize the grant to facilitate cleaning, the brewers would close off the open pipe that served to vent the viewing grant. One day, the plaintiff, an employee of the brewery, was giving a tour, when the glass in the grant burst sending scalding cleaning solution onto his back and legs. The plaintiff spent over three months in the hospital burn unit. The drugs used for pain while he was in the hospital were so powerful that the plaintiff had to undergo withdrawal from the drugs, in addition to the physical suffering from the burns themselves. The plaintiff sued the manufacturer of the grant on the theory that the flat piece of glass and the absence of warnings not to pressurize the grant made the viewing grant unreasonably dangerous. Although the judge dismissed the plaintiff's entire case on summary judgment, Osborn Smith was able persuade the judge to change her mind and allow the plaintiff's case to go to the jury. The case eventually settled after a mediation, for a sum confidential. Lawyers: Sim Osborn and Susan Machler.
Personal Injury
Osborn Machler has represented hundreds of injured people and their families in personal injury cases, including motor vehicle accidents, premises liability cases, and medical malpractice cases. The firm has extensive experience in cases against state, county, or municipal agencies in cases involving negligent road design, the failure to protect innocent children in foster care, and the failure to protect innocent people from criminal activity at public facilities.
Recent Personal Injury Cases
Presnell v. Stowens and DSHS. This case arose out of the death of a six year old boy who died from an overdose of prescription drugs while in the custody of the state Department of Social and Health Services. This case led to the Department of Social and Health Services completely revamping their procedures and policies on dispensing prescription drugs to children in their care. The State alleged that the responsibility for the child's death rested with the deceased child's mother because it was her conduct that led to the child's placement with DSHS in the first place. This amounted to a new form of immunity wherein the State could cause injury, even death, to a child in its custody, but it was the parents fault for allowing State intervention in the first place, in spite of the fact that the State takes children into custody for the protection of the child. The judge ruled as a matter of law that a parent is not contributorily negligent if his or her child is in DSHS custody, and DSHS causes the death of the child. It also won Seattle PI newspaper reporter Steve Goldsmith a national award for covering the case. The case was settled. Trial lawyers: Sim Osborn and Ted Parry. The case was settled. Trial lawyer: Sim Osborn.
Motamed v. Port of Seattle. The plaintiff Soheila Motamed was shot in the head by Kinnick Sanford, a known drug abuser and felon. Mr. Sanford has been in the airport parking garage five days earlier and held another woman up at gunpoint. Based on this, a lawsuit was filed against the Port of Seattle the firm discovered a pattern of willful neglect on the part of the Port as a disregard to security to its business invitees. The Port maintained that as a governmental entity it could not be sued, pursuant to the doctrine of sovereign immunity, no matter how egregious its conduct was in allowing a constant and dangerous criminal element to thrive in its parking garage. As a result of this case, the Port has been forced to provide a new lighting system in the parking garage ($10,000,000.00) and provide 24 hour police patrol in the parking garage. The case was settled for $2.6 million after a nine-hour mediation. Lawyers: Sim Osborn and Susan Machler
Butler v.(Confidential) drug store. This was a case where a drug store incorrectly filled a prescription for a man who had just had a heart attack. The deceased also had an aortic aneurism that was inoperable. The drug store filled his prescription with the one drug that could kill him (Coumadin). This 86 year old man died after one month in hospice care, as all his major organs shut down. His wife and children spent much of that month at the hospice with him, waiting for him to die. They were an extremely close family, and the unexpected death of Mr. Butler was very traumatic. This case settled prior to a lawsuit being filed subject to a confidentiality agreement. Lawyers: Sim Osborn and Susan Machler
Leach v. State of Washington. A state patrol officer pulled over the plaintiff, and when he discovered that there was an outstanding arrest warrant for her, he told her that she could get off if she gave him sex. The trooper then sexually assaulted the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed suit against the trooper and the state patrol. As a result of plaintiff's lawsuit, more victims came forward, and the trooper was fired. Subsequently, the state patrol changed the way it investigates it own officers. The case settled in the high six figures and resulted in positive changes in the state patrol. Trial lawyers: Sim Osborn and Ted Parry. The case settled in the high six figures and resulted in positive changes in the state patrol. Lawyer: Sim Osborn
Jones v. Puget Power. Davey Jones was using a hay boom to lead a haystack onto a semi truck. Because of the glare of the sun and some overgrown branches, plaintiff, Davey Jones was unable to see that the haystack was right below a 7200 volt wire. When Davey raised the boom on the hay truck in contracted the wire and electrocuted Davey. The electrical burns were so severe Davey had to have his forearm amputated. This case settle for a seven figure settlement. Trial lawyer: Sim Osborn.
Fallazadeh v. King County, Allazadah, V&J Construction and Pacific Ventures. The plaintiff was a passenger in the back seat of a convertible mustang that went out of control on a King County road left the road and flipped into a storm sewer under construction. As a result of the injuries she received in the accident, plaintiff was rendered an incomplete quadriplegic. Plaintiff sued King County and the various construction companies for a negligent road design and improper guarding of the construction project. The case settled at mediation on the eve of trial for a significant seven figure sum. Lawyer: Sim Osborn.
Appellate Practice
The attorneys at Osborn Machler are experienced in taking difficult cases to trial, but they also represent their clients in the event of an appeal. In some cases, the plaintiffs' cases had been dismissed, but the cases were allowed to go forward after successful appeals.
Listed below are some of the appellate cases handled by attorneys at Osborn Machler.
Blankenship v. Kaldor, 114 Wn.App. 312 (2002)
Miller v. Likens, 109 Wn.App. 140 (2001)
Ellwein v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 142 Wn. 2d 766 (2001)
Lacey v. Dept. of Revenue, 128 Wn.2d 40
Ruff v. King County, 72 Wn.App. 289, 125 Wn.2d 697
