Title: Kataisto v. Low
Citation: 438 P.2d 623, 73 Wash. 2d 341
Docket Number: 39109
State: Washington
Issuer: Washington Supreme Court
Date: March 14, 1968

73 Wn.2d 341 (1968) 438 P.2d 623 LETA KATAISTO, Appellant, v. JOHN DOE LOW et al., Respondents.[*] No. 39109. The Supreme Court of Washington, Department Two. March 14, 1968. William Merchant Peace (of Walthew, Warner &amp; Keefe), for appellant. *342 Robert P. Piper (of Karr, Tuttle, Campbell, Koch &amp; Campbell) and Martin Wolf (of Wolf, Cafferty &amp; Wilkins), for respondents. PER CURIAM: The plaintiff (appellant) appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants (respondents). Leta Kataisto, the plaintiff, slipped on a boardwalk and was injured while visiting her sister, Dorothia Low, early on a rainy morning. She brought this suit against Dorothia Low and her lessor, Jack Corrock, alleging negligence on the part of either or both. Dorothia Low cross-claimed against Corrock, alleging that a covenant to repair made him answerable for any negligence established by the plaintiff. Based on interrogatories propounded to the plaintiff and on depositions taken, both defendants moved for summary judgment, which was granted. [1] The defendants contend that the judgment must be affirmed without reaching the merits because this court has no statement of facts before it on which to base a review, and it is presumed in such a case that the trial court's judgment was proper in law and fact. We agree. The plaintiff has submitted a transcript certified by the clerk of the King County Superior Court, which contains interrogatories, depositions and affidavits; but has not filed a statement of facts certified by the trial judge, as provided for in ROA 34 and 37. Neither does the trial court's order granting the motion for summary judgment specifically identify the affidavits, the depositions, or the interrogatories. The rule applied in this situation, and the reasons for applying it, are clearly explained in American Universal Ins. Co. v. Ranson, 59 Wn.2d 811, 370 P.2d 867 (1962), at 815-16: The judgment is affirmed. [*] Reported in 438 P.2d 623.