Court Opinion

ID: 9573240
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:50:34.051044+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:38:24.368229
License: Public Domain

*5Finley, J.
(dissenting) — I agree with the facts as stated by the majority, but not with the majority’s interpretation of these facts. Where the facts indicate or support different evaluations, Kalinowski v. YWCA, 17 Wn.2d 380, 135 P.2d 852 (1943), is not controlling, and it is at this point that I differ with the trial court and the majority herein. In Kalinowski, the plaintiff fell after she had crossed a mat, and the cause of the fall was the wax that she carried on her own shoes. ■ The case also shows that she had crossed the lobby several times earlier and that she was or should have been more familiar with the existing conditions. Here, taking the plaintiff’s evidence as true and according it the appropriate favorable inferences, the record shows that the plaintiff fell in a passageway, off the dance floor, where there was an accumulation of wax and tinsel in a dimly-lighted walkway or passageway. These facts are enough to convince me that the plaintiff made a prima facie case to go to the jury.
For the reasons briefly stated, I think the order of the trial judge should be reversed and that the plaintiff should be granted a new trial. Consequently, I dissent.
Hunter, J., concurs with Finley, J.