Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 56466-1-II Published Opinion.pdf

to the Port’s maintenance facility that the straddle carrier’s brakes were “‘chattering violently.’”

CP at 296. Paddock said he and his colleague, Steve Hughes, inspected the straddle carrier’s brakes

and found that “the braking [system] was severely compromised.” Id. Paddock then tagged the

straddle carrier to signify that it should not “be used until it [had] been fully repaired and

inspected.” CP at 297. He explained that only a manager or the person who assigned the tag would

have been able to authorize its removal. Paddock said that when he came to work the next day—

the day of the accident—he noticed that the straddle carrier was in operation. He stated that he told

Hughes, “‘That machine’s out working. It shouldn’t be.’” CP at 315. Paddock thought the machine

could not have been repaired while he was away because of the severity of the problem with the

brakes.

During his deposition, Paddock expressed confusion about the details surrounding the

accident, which had occurred about four years earlier. Several times, he said he could not give

specific dates for the tagging or the accident itself. When Edwards’s attorney asked Paddock

whether the day before the accident was August 29, 2012, Paddock said, “I’m not real sure of the

date. It’s been a long time.” CP at 313. The attorney asked, “If the tipover was on August 30th,

3
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 56466-1-II

then it would have been August 29th that the safety problem with the brakes was brought to your

attention?” Id. Paddock replied, “Apparently, yes.” Id.

Later in the deposition, the manufacturer’s attorney showed Paddock a timecard indicating

that Hughes was on vacation on the day of the accident and the day before it: