Title: Gevaart v. Metco Construction, Inc.
Citation: 111 Wash. 2d 499, 760 P.2d 348
Docket Number: 54341-1
State: Washington
Issuer: Washington Supreme Court
Date: September 1, 1988

111 Wn.2d 499 (1988) 760 P.2d 348 DEBBIE GEVAART, Petitioner, v. METCO CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL, Respondents. No. 54341-1. The Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. September 1, 1988. *500 Schroeter, Goldmark &amp; Bender and James D. Hailey, for petitioner. Richard B. Johnson, for respondents. DOLLIVER, J. Plaintiff Debbie Gevaart brought a negligence action against defendant Metco Construction, Inc., claiming negligent design and construction of a stairway. On October 25, 1981, plaintiff ascended the stairs to her residence in the Executive Manor Condominiums. Upon reaching the top step, which sloped downward, she lost her balance and fell backward. Sometime after November 1981, Gevaart learned, from a discussion with her family and friends, that the slope of the step may have been improperly constructed. In April 1982, Gevaart retained an attorney who investigated the accident scene, employing experts in architectural design and engineering psychology. In August 1984, the engineering psychologist submitted a report stating Gevaart's injuries were the direct result of the poorly designed and constructed stairway. On October 29, 1984, more than 3 years after the accident, a complaint for personal injuries was filed by Gevaart. [1] The trial court, finding no genuine issues of material fact, granted the defendant Metco's motion for summary judgment because the action was barred by the 3-year statute of limitations. In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed. We granted review. After examining the record and hearing oral argument, we affirm the Court of Appeals. The decision of that court, although unpublished, fully resolves the issues raised by Gevaart. (Cf. North Coast Air Servs. v. Grumman Corp., 111 Wn.2d 315, 319, 759 P.2d 405 (1988) holding "claimant in a product liability case must have discovered, or in the exercise of due diligence should have discovered, a factual causal relationship of the product to the harm." This is not in issue here.) We concur in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, publish *501 the essential parts of that opinion, and adopt them as our own: Gevaart v. Metco Constr., Inc., noted at 48 Wn. App. 1034 (1987). *503 The Court of Appeals is affirmed. PEARSON, C.J., and UTTER, DORE, ANDERSEN, CALLOW, and DURHAM, JJ., concur. BRACHTENBACH, J., concurs in the result.