Court Opinion

ID: 9571689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:34:15.768946+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:49.076122
License: Public Domain

Alexander, J.
(dissenting in part) — I respectfully dis.sent from the majority opinion. I do so because I believe that the question of whether or not the conduct of the Vancouver police officers in questioning Keates was outrageous is a question for the jury. It, therefore, should not have been decided by the trial court on summary judgment. It may very well be that Keates will not prevail at trial on his outrage claim; nevertheless, it is a stretch to say, as the majority does here, that even after accepting Keates’s allegation as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in his *271favor, reasonable minds could only conclude that the police officer’s conduct was not outrageous.
I also disagree with the majority’s conclusion that former police chief Van Blaricom’s affidavit does not contribute to a determination that there is a triable issue of fact here. As an expert witness with specialized knowledge, Van Blari-com’s opinion that the treatment of Keates was "so lacking in the expected professional standard of care as to be callously outrageous” would be helpful to the trier of fact. See ER 702. His statement is primarily an observation about facts and the trial court should have considered it along with the other evidence and concluded that there was a fact issue for trial. I would reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the outrage claim and remand for trial on that claim.
Reconsideration denied April 21,1994.
Review denied at 124 Wn.2d 1026 (1994).