Van Dinter v. City of Kennewick
1993 Wash. LEXIS 64, 846 P.2d 522, 121 Wash. 2d 38 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Washington's recreational use statute, RCW 4.24.210, a landowner is immune from liability for injuries to recreational users unless the injury is caused by a "known dangerous artificial latent condition," where "latent" means the physical condition itself is not readily apparent to the recreational user, not merely that its specific danger is unobvious.
Facts:
- On August 4, 1989, Duane Van Dinter attended a birthday party at a park in Kennewick, Washington.
- The park contained a caterpillar-shaped piece of playground equipment designed for children to climb on, which had metal rods protruding from its head as antennae.
- During the party, Van Dinter and a child engaged in a water-fight game near the caterpillar.
- While on the grassy area next to the caterpillar, Van Dinter turned suddenly and struck his right eye on one of the caterpillar's antennae, causing his dark glasses to shatter and resulting in a serious injury that left him disfigured and almost blind in that eye.
- Van Dinter stated that he did not realize someone on the adjacent grassy area could collide with any part of the caterpillar.
- Manufacturer specifications for the caterpillar indicated a 6-foot border of "well-maintained loose surfacing" around the equipment, and Consumer Product Safety Commission guidelines recommended an 8-foot border; however, the installed caterpillar's border extended only 3 to 4 inches beyond its antennae.
Procedural Posture:
- Duane Van Dinter sued the City of Kennewick in trial court for negligence.
- The City of Kennewick moved for summary judgment, asserting immunity under Washington's recreational use statute, RCW 4.24.210.
- The trial court granted the City of Kennewick's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Van Dinter's action.
- Van Dinter, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Washington Court of Appeals, where the City of Kennewick was the appellee.
- The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's summary judgment.
- Van Dinter filed a petition for review with 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:
Is an injury-causing condition considered "latent" under Washington's recreational use statute, RCW 4.24.210, if the physical condition itself is obvious but its specific danger is not readily apparent to a recreational user?
Opinions:
Majority - Guy, J.
No, an injury-causing condition is not considered "latent" under Washington's recreational use statute if the condition itself is obvious, even if its specific danger is not readily apparent to a recreational user. The court determined that the "condition" causing Van Dinter's injury was the caterpillar's placement and its proximity to the grassy area, not the caterpillar in isolation, construing facts favorably to Van Dinter at summary judgment. It clarified that for purposes of RCW 4.24.210, "latent" modifies "condition" and means "not readily apparent to the recreational user," explaining that "known" refers to the landowner's knowledge and "latent" to the user's perception. The court explicitly rejected Van Dinter's argument that a patent (obvious) condition with a latent (unobvious) danger satisfies the statutory requirement, stating that "latent" modifies "condition," not "danger." Since the caterpillar and its proximity to the grassy area were "obvious," the condition was not latent, and therefore, the City of Kennewick was immune from liability under the statute. The court overruled Preston v. Pierce Cy. to the extent it suggested that a latent danger from a patent condition could satisfy the latency requirement, and affirmed Gaeta v. Seattle City Light as the proper interpretation. Based on this, the court concluded that the proximity of the caterpillar to the grassy area was not latent, making summary judgment appropriate for the City.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of landowner immunity under Washington's recreational use statute, RCW 4.24.210, by strictly defining "latent condition." It establishes that for liability to attach, the physical condition itself, not merely its inherent danger, must be hidden or not readily apparent to the recreational user. This narrow interpretation strongly favors landowners, reducing their potential liability and reinforcing the statute's goal of encouraging public access to recreational lands. Future cases will likely apply this strict "condition-focused" interpretation of "latent," making it more difficult for injured recreational users to overcome landowner immunity unless the injury-causing feature is truly concealed.
