Iwai v. State
129 Wash.2d 84 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner has a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees from dangerous conditions arising from natural accumulations of snow and ice. Liability can attach without proof of actual or constructive notice of the specific hazard if the dangerous condition was reasonably foreseeable due to the nature of the property and the landowner's method of operation.
Facts:
- On November 27, 1984, over seven inches of snow fell in Spokane.
- A contractor plowed the parking lot for the Employment Security Department's Job Service Center on the same day, but no sand was applied.
- Between November 27 and 29, the temperature fluctuated between 36 and 28 degrees Fahrenheit.
- On November 29, 1984, Barbara Iwai drove to the Job Service Center, knowing conditions were slippery and observing the parking lot was icy.
- Iwai parked in the only available stall, located on a sloped section of the lot.
- Upon exiting her vehicle, Iwai slipped on ice and broke her wrist.
- The maintenance manager for Employment Security, John Lester, acknowledged that the inclined section of the lot was a known problem area in winter where cars often slid, making it difficult to de-ice.
Procedural Posture:
- Barbara Iwai and her husband sued the State of Washington and the Employment Security Department in a state trial court for negligence.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they had no duty to protect invitees from natural accumulations of snow and ice.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
- The Iwais, as appellants, appealed the decision to the Washington Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment and remanded the case for trial.
- The State and Employment Security Department, as petitioners, were granted review by the Supreme Court of Washington.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landowner have a duty to protect invitees from injuries caused by natural accumulations of snow and ice, and can the landowner be held liable for such injuries if the specific dangerous condition was reasonably foreseeable, even without actual or constructive notice of the specific hazard?
Opinions:
Majority - Dolliver, J.
Yes. A landowner has a duty to protect invitees from natural snow and ice accumulations, and liability can be imposed where the dangerous condition was reasonably foreseeable, even without notice of the specific hazard. The court formally rejects the 'natural accumulation rule,' which traditionally absolved landowners of this duty, and instead adopts the standard of care outlined in the Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 343 & 343A. Under this standard, a landowner's duty of reasonable care applies to all dangerous conditions, whether natural or artificial. While the plaintiff, Iwai, could not prove the landowner had notice of the specific icy patch, her claim can proceed under an expanded exception to the notice requirement. The court extends the 'foreseeability exception' beyond its previous limitation to self-service stores, holding it applies wherever 'the nature of the proprietor’s business and his methods of operation are such that the existence of unsafe conditions on the premises is reasonably foreseeable.' Given Employment Security's knowledge that the sloped parking lot regularly became treacherous in winter, a jury could find the icy condition was foreseeable, thus relieving the plaintiff of the burden to prove notice of the specific patch of ice.
Concurrence - Alexander, J.
The majority reaches the correct result, but its reasoning needlessly complicates premises liability law. Expanding the separate 'foreseeability' exception from the Pimentel line of cases is unnecessary and creates uncertainty. The general principles of landowner liability articulated in Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 343 and 343A are sufficient on their own to analyze this case and allow it to proceed to a jury without creating a confusing, functionally equivalent rule.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Guy, J.
I concur with the majority's rejection of the natural accumulation rule (Part I), but dissent from its expansion of the foreseeability exception to the notice requirement (Part II). Precedent has strictly limited this exception to hazards arising from a 'self-service mode of operation.' Extending this rule to a parking lot abandons the traditional and necessary requirement that a plaintiff must prove the landowner had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition and a reasonable opportunity to repair it. This change effectively makes landowners insurers against any foreseeable danger on their property, which is a significant departure from established tort principles.
Analysis:
This decision significantly alters premises liability law in Washington by solidifying the rejection of the 'natural accumulation rule' for snow and ice. More importantly, it expands the 'foreseeability' exception to the notice requirement, removing its previous limitation to self-service businesses. This change makes it easier for plaintiffs to defeat summary judgment in cases involving recurring or predictable hazards, shifting the legal focus from whether the owner knew of a specific dangerous spot to whether the owner should have foreseen that such a danger was likely to occur and taken reasonable precautions. The ruling imposes a more proactive duty on landowners to anticipate and manage known, recurring risks on their property.
