Ytterberg et al v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

Filing 50

ORDER denying 38 Motion for Summary Judgment by Judge Richard A Jones. (JJ)

Download PDF
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 10 DONALD YTTERBERG and ABIGAYLE YTTERBERG, individually and as guardians of minor child, E.Y., Plaintiff, 11 12 13 v. ORDER HOME DEPOT, U.S.A., INC., Defendant. 14 15 16 17 18 19 CASE NO. C10-675RAJ I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the court in a motion for summary judgment from Defendant Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. (“Home Depot”). Dkt. # 38. No party requested oral argument, and the court finds oral argument unnecessary. For the reasons stated below, the court DENIES the motion. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 II. BACKGROUND Abigayle and Donald Ytterberg were shopping with their two young children at Seattle’s Aurora Village Home Depot on February 11, 2010. While Mrs. Ytterberg and her children were in the window and door department of the store, a display door fell on top of her two-year-old daughter E.Y. Mrs. Ytterberg pulled E.Y. out from under the door immediately after the incident. E.Y. suffered multiple facial fractures and lacerations, and 27 28 ORDER – 1 1 the Ytterbergs allege that E.Y. will have permanent scars from the incident. The 2 Ytterbergs have sued Home Depot for negligence. 3 David Collison, a supervisor in Home Depot’s door and window department, built 4 the door display. He described it as “top-heavy,” as well as unstable when both doors are 5 open. Thatcher Decl., Ex. C (Collison Dep., p.51:6-52:11). Store Manager Dale Markey 6 also testified that he felt the door display was unstable and capable of falling toward a 7 person if both doors were open. Rosato Decl., Ex. 5 (Markey Dep., p. 14:3-14:9). Mr. 8 Collison further reported that, on the day of the incident, both display doors were closed 9 when he went on a lunch break, but that he did not observe the position of the doors after 10 the incident. Thatcher Decl., Ex. C (Collison Dep., p.52:20-53:3). There is nothing in the 11 record indicating that anyone observed the doors’ position between when Mr. Collison 12 left and when the display fell on E.Y. Carrie Warren, assistant store manager, testified to 13 hearing a child screaming, racing to the incident area, and helping Mrs. Ytterberg pull the 14 door display off of E.Y. Thatcher Decl., Ex. B (Warren Dep., p. 78:12-79:13). Expert witness Vern Goodwin, a registered professional engineer, inspected the 15 16 door display after the incident. He reported that the 76-pound display carried most of its 17 weight up top. Goodwin Decl. at 2. With display doors closed, it took approximately 7.7 18 pounds of force applied horizontally to the door handles to tip the display. Id. With 19 display doors open at 90 degrees, it took 2 pounds applied horizontally or 7.3 pounds 20 applied vertically to the handles to tip the door display. Id. Mr. Goodwin concluded that 21 the display could be tipped by a child of E.Y.’s size. Id. Other than E.Y. herself, there 22 were no eyewitnesses to the incident.1 23 24 1 25 26 27 28 The Ytterbergs submitted a declaration from E.Y. describing the incident. Home Depot challenges the evidentiary competency of a declaration crafted on behalf of a three-year-old describing her memory of events that occurred when she was two. The court need not address the challenge at this time, because the court does not rely on E.Y.’s declaration in reaching its ruling today. ORDER – 2 1 The parties dispute the events that led to the display falling. Home Depot contends 2 that it is entitled to summary judgment because there is no evidence that its negligence 3 was the proximate cause of the incident. 4 III. ANALYSIS 5 6 On a motion for summary judgment, the court must draw all inferences from the 7 admissible evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Addisu v. Fred 8 Meyer, Inc., 198 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 2000). Summary judgment is appropriate 9 where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a 10 judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party must initially show 11 the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 12 323 (1986). The opposing party must then show a genuine issue of fact for trial. 13 Matsushita Elect. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). The 14 opposing party must present probative evidence to support its claim or defense. Intel 15 Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 952 F.2d 1551, 1558 (9th Cir. 1991). The court 16 defers to neither party in resolving purely legal questions. See Bendixen v. Standard Ins. 17 Co., 185 F.3d 939, 942 (9th Cir. 1999). 18 In negligence actions, the plaintiff must establish that: (1) the defendant had a 19 duty; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) the plaintiff suffered injuries; and (4) the 20 defendant’s breach of duty proximately caused plaintiff’s injuries. Iwai v. State, 915 P.2d 21 1089, 1094 (Wash. 1996). In its motion, Home Depot does not contest duty, breach, or 22 E.Y’s injuries. Home Depot moves for summary judgment solely because it believes that 23 there is no evidence from which a jury could conclude that its negligence proximately 24 caused the door display to fall on E.Y. 25 26 Circumstantial evidence can be used to prove negligence. Gerard v. Peasley, 403 P.2d 45, 49 (Wash. 1965); See also Attwood v. Albertson’s Food Ctrs., Inc., 966 P.2d 27 28 ORDER – 3 1 351, 353 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998) (explaining that “[t]he plaintiff need not establish 2 causation by direct and positive evidence, but only by a chain of circumstances from 3 which the ultimate fact required is reasonably and naturally inferable”). The 4 circumstantial evidence is sufficient “if it affords room for men of reasonable minds to 5 conclude that there is a greater probability that the conduct relied upon was the proximate 6 cause of the injury than there is that it was not.” Wise v. Hayes, 361 P.2d 171, 172 (Wash. 7 1961). 8 There is evidence from which a jury could conclude that Home Depot’s 9 negligence was the proximate cause of the incident. There is no dispute that a Home 10 Depot display door fell on top of E.Y. or that the incident resulted in injuries. Rosato 11 Decl. at 12-14 (A. Ytterberg Dep., p. 29:21-31:4); Warren Decl., Ex. 1. No one, except 12 perhaps E.Y., can know for certain how the display fell. But it is not necessary that 13 anyone know the cause for certain. It is sufficient if a jury could determine that Home 14 Depot’s negligence was more probably than not the proximate cause. Mr. Goodwin’s 15 testimony gives the jury a basis to conclude that the display’s admittedly top-heavy 16 construction allowed it to tip from the force of a small child. The display might have 17 fallen when E.Y. pulled the door handles when the doors were open. Goodwin Decl. at 2. 18 Or, it might have fallen when the doors were closed and E.Y. pulled the handles or the 19 display itself. Thatcher Decl., Ex. E (Goodwin Dep., p. 51:18-52:8). It is of course 20 possible that there was some other cause, although the court notes that Home Depot has 21 offered no evidence of another cause. Perhaps another customer caused the display to fall 22 on E.Y. Perhaps her younger brother was involved in some way. A jury can consider 23 these alternatives, and any others for which the parties provide evidence. The jury’s job is 24 to determine whether the Ytterbergs’ proffered explanation, for which they have provided 25 evidence, is more likely accurate than not. Because the evidence permits the jury to reach 26 27 28 ORDER – 4 1 a conclusion that Home Depot’s negligence proximately caused the display door to fall 2 and injure E.Y., summary judgment is inappropriate. 3 IV. CONCLUSION 4 5 6 7 For the reasons stated above, the court DENIES Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Dkt. # 38. DATED this 5th day of July, 2011. 8 A 9 10 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER – 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?