Court Opinion

ID: 9947499
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-04 21:18:25.140289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:29.606548
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

 ROY D. CHEESMAN,                              No. 85475-5-I

                           Appellant,          DIVISION ONE
                v.

 SOUND FORD, FRANK SCHMIDT,                    UNPUBLISHED OPINION
 ADAM LARSON, FORD MOTOR
 COMPANY, JAMES FARLEY, JR.,
 WILLIAM FORD, JR.,

                           Respondent.

       SMITH, C.J. — Roy Cheesman sued Ford Motor Company for product

liability after the metal latch of his seat belt allegedly failed to retract fully and

injured him when he entered his car. The trial court granted Ford’s motion for

summary judgment, dismissing the case with prejudice and concluding that

Cheesman failed to meet his burden of proving that the seat belt was defective or

that it caused him harm. Cheesman filed an untimely motion for reconsideration,

which the trial court denied. On appeal, Cheesman contends that the trial court

abused its discretion in denying his motion for reconsideration. Because the

court did not err in denying the motion, we affirm.

                                         FACTS

       In July 2016, Roy Cheesman purchased a new 2016 Ford Fiesta from

Sound Ford, a car dealership in Renton, Washington. Three years later,

Cheesman’s car was rear-ended by another vehicle while stopped at a red light.
No. 85475-5-I/2

The driver in the other vehicle fled the scene. Cheesman, who had gotten out of

his own car, hastily climbed back in to chase the other driver. Eventually, the

other driver stopped and the police responded to the accident.

       Two days after the collision, Cheesman sought medical care. He

complained of a head injury, dizziness, and shoulder pain. He attributed all pain

to the collision, alleging aggravation of a preexisting shoulder injury. He did not

mention back pain or attribute any of his complaints to a defect in the seat belt.

       Cheesman then initiated a slew of lawsuits against the driver that rear-

ended him, the driver’s insurer, and several of the insurer’s employees. At the

conclusion of those lawsuits, he sued his own attorney for allegedly failing to

obtain an appropriate settlement.

       Over two years after the accident, and after all of his other lawsuits had

settled, Cheesman alleged that he was injured by a defective driver’s side seat

belt during the accident. He sought treatment from a chiropractor in April 2022.

During this April appointment, Cheesman informed the chiropractor that he

thought his back pain was caused by a faulty seat belt when he jumped back into

his car to chase the other driver. This was the first time he ever attributed his

injuries to the seat belt.

       Two weeks later, Cheesman sued Ford Motor Company (Ford), two Ford

executives, Sound Ford, and two Sound Ford employees. Each claim centered

on his theory that he injured his back when he re-entered his car to chase the

other driver and the seat belt latch “stabbed” him in the back. He also alleged a

                                          2
No. 85475-5-I/3

breach of warranty. The trial court dismissed Cheesman’s claims against all

parties except Ford. The court similarly dismissed the warranty claim, noting that

Cheesman did not present his vehicle for warranty repair during the warranty

period. Cheesman’s product liability claim against Ford, asserting a defective

seat belt, was the only remaining cause of action. Ford then moved for summary

judgment.

       In April 2023, the trial court held a hearing on Ford’s motion for summary

judgment. Ford argued that Cheesman provided no evidence that his seat belt

was not reasonably safe or that it had caused him any harm. Ford also noted

that Cheesman admitted during his deposition that he “did not see really what

injured [him] on [his] back.” Ford then provided evidence that the driver’s side

seat belt in Cheesman’s car appeared to be functioning correctly. Kenneth

Cooper, a service technician, inspected the seat belt during discovery

proceedings and determined that it retracted properly. Jennifer Buckman, a Ford

design analysis engineer, similarly determined that the seat belt was operating as

designed. Buckman also testified that Cheesman’s proposed scenario, where

the seat belt failed to retract and stood out from the seat, was impossible when a

driver was exiting the vehicle.

       In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, Cheesman submitted

staged photos showing that the seat belt latch could be positioned to point

outwards from the seat.1 He offered no evidence to counter Ford’s statement

       1  Cheesman acknowledged that he staged the photos to show the seat
belt latch sticking out from the seat.

                                         3
No. 85475-5-I/4

that it was impossible for the seat belt to remain in that position as the driver

exited the vehicle. When asked directly by the court, Cheesman acknowledged

that he had no medical evidence to support his claim and that no one had been

able to tell him that his seat belt was malfunctioning.

       The trial court granted Ford’s motion for summary judgment, concluding

that there was insufficient proof of an injury caused by the seat belt and

insufficient proof that the seat belt was not reasonably safe.

       Over two weeks later, Cheesman moved for reconsideration, arguing that

the court erred in concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact.

The court denied Cheesman’s motion. The court also awarded Ford its attorney

fees and costs as the prevailing party.

       Cheesman appeals.

                                     ANALYSIS

                            Motion for Reconsideration

       Cheesman argues that the court abused its discretion in denying his

motion for reconsideration. Because the motion was untimely, we disagree.

       We review a court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of

discretion. River House Dev., Inc. v. Integrus Architecture, PS, 167 Wn. App.

221, 231, 272 P.2d 289 (2012). A court abuses its discretion if its decision is

“manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable

reasons.” River House, 167 Wn. App. 221 at 231.

                                          4
No. 85475-5-I/5

       Under CR 59, a party must move for reconsideration “not later than 10

days” after the entry of an order. CR 59(b). The trial court has no discretion to

extend the time for a party to file a motion for reconsideration. CR 6(b)(2); In re

Marriage of Doneen, 197 Wn. App. 941, 951, 391 P.3d 594 (2017). The denial of

an untimely motion for reconsideration is not an abuse of discretion. Griffin v.

Draper, 32 Wn. App. 611, 613, 649 P.2d 123 (1982). We hold pro se litigants to

the same standards as attorneys. Winter v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 12

Wn. App. 2d 815, 844, 460 P.3d 667 (2020).

       Here, the trial court entered its order granting Ford’s motion for summary

judgment on April 21, 2023. Cheesman filed his motion for reconsideration

17 days later, on May 8, 2023. Because Cheesman filed his motion more than

10 days after the court’s order granting summary judgment, the trial court did not

abuse its discretion in denying the motion. We note that Cheesman experienced

some difficulty in filing his motion for reconsideration, including questions about

notice and oral argument. While we acknowledge these difficulties, they do not

extend the time frame within which he needed to file the motion for

reconsideration. We reiterate that pro se litigants are held to the same standard

as attorneys.

       And even if the court had considered Cheesman’s motion for

reconsideration, denying the motion was not an abuse of discretion because the

summary judgment order dismissing the case was proper.

                                          5
No. 85475-5-I/6

                                Summary Judgment

       In his notice of appeal, Cheesman only mentions the court’s order denying

his motion for reconsideration. His briefing on appeal, however, challenges the

court’s grant of summary judgment. To the extent that Cheesman intended to

appeal the summary judgment order, his arguments are similarly untimely.

       In general, RAP 5.2(a) provides that a notice of appeal must be filed in the

trial court within 30 days. A timely motion for reconsideration filed in the trial

court, for example, will extend the time for an appeal to within 30 days of the

order deciding the motion for reconsideration. RAP 5.2(a), (e). An untimely

motion, however, will not extend the 30 day deadline. Cox v. Kroger Co., 2 Wn.

App. 2d 395, 409, 409 P.3d 1191 (2018). And “an appellate court will only in

extraordinary circumstances and to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice extend

the time within which a party must file a notice of appeal.” RAP 18.8(b).

       Here, Cheesman filed his notice of appeal 55 days after the trial court

entered its order on summary judgment. Because the untimely motion for

reconsideration did not extend Cheesman’s window to appeal the underlying

summary judgment order, he is well outside the 30 day limit. And Cheesman

neither asks for an extension of time, nor articulates any extraordinary

circumstances warranting review to prevent the gross miscarriage of justice.

Cheesman did not appeal within the required time frame and there are no

exceptions under which to extend that time.

                                           6
No. 85475-5-I/7

      Even if Cheesman had appealed the grant of summary judgment within

the appropriate time frame, the court did not err in concluding that Cheesman

failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact so as to survive summary

judgment.

      We review a trial court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, engaging in

the same inquiry as the trial court. Keck v. Collins, 184 Wn.2d 358, 370, 357

P.3d 1080 (2015). On review, we consider the evidence and all reasonable

inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Keck,

184 Wn.2d at 370. Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue

exists as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law. CR 56(c). A genuine issue of material fact exists “if reasonable

minds could differ on facts which control the outcome of the proceeding.”

Ghodsee v. City of Kent, 21 Wn. App. 2d 762, 768, 508 P.3d 193 (2022),

remanded, 1 Wn.3d 101, 526 P.3d 852 (2023). A party opposing summary

judgment cannot rely simply on allegations, denials, opinions, or conclusory

statements, but instead must provide specific facts establishing a genuine issue

for trial. Allen v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd., 138 Wn. App. 564, 570-71, 157 P.3d 406

(2007).

      The “Washington Product Liability Act” (WPLA) imposes liability on a

manufacturer if a product is not reasonably safe as designed. RCW 7.72.030(1).

To maintain a claim under the WPLA, a plaintiff must show “(1) a manufacturer’s

product (2) was not reasonably safe as designed and (3) caused harm to the

                                         7
No. 85475-5-I/8

plaintiff.” Thongchoom v. Graco Child. Prod., Inc., 117 Wn. App. 299, 304, 71

P.3d 214 (2003).

       Here, Cheesman cannot show that his seat belt was not reasonably safe

as designed or that it caused him any harm. In support of his assertion that his

seat belt was defective, Cheesman only provides conclusory statements that the

seat belt failed to retract properly. Ford provided a declaration from Buckman

detailing that the 2016 Ford Fiesta’s design specifications for safety seat belts

met both the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 49 C.F.R. § 571.210

(2013), and Ford design specifications. Cheesman admitted before the trial court

that the photos he submitted in support of his contention were staged. Moreover,

the staged photos only show that it is possible for someone to place the seat belt

latch upright against the seat; they do not prove that his seat belt remained in

that position.

       And although one of the videos submitted by Ford shows that it is possible

for a seat belt to retract slowly, Cooper demonstrated that tapping the belt will

slide it back into place. The video does not, as Cheesman asserts, establish that

the seat belt was malfunctioning.

       Further, when asked directly by the judge if he had any medical records to

show that he had been injured by the seat belt, Cheesman acknowledged he had

no medical evidence to support his claim. When the court then asked Cheesman

whether a technician or mechanic had told him that his seat belt was not

functioning properly, Cheesman again acknowledged that no one had been able

                                         8
No. 85475-5-I/9

to tell him that anything was wrong. And finally, in his deposition, Cheesman

conceded that he “did not really see what injured [him] on [his] back.” Without

any evidence that the seat belt was defective, that he was injured, or even that

he knew what had injured him, Cheesman’s allegation that the seat belt caused

the back injury is purely speculative. As such, it is insufficient to prove a genuine

issue of material fact. Because no genuine issue of material fact existed, the trial

court did not err in granting Ford’s motion for summary judgment.

       We affirm.

WE CONCUR:

                                          9