Martini v. Post, 178 Wash. App. 153 (2013)

Citation: Martini v. Post, 178 Wash. App. 153 (2013)
Parent Document: Martini v. Post, 178 Wash. App. 153 (2013)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2013-11-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4954189/martini-v-post/ ↗

Full Text

955 chars

¶28 The plaintiff cannot rest a claim for liability on a speculative theory. See Marshall v. Bally’s Pacwest, Inc., 94 Wn. App. 372, 378-80, 972 P.2d 475 (1999). The plaintiff, however, need not prove cause in fact to an absolute certainty. Gardner v. Seymour, 27 Wn.2d 802, 808,180 P.2d 564 (1947). It is sufficient if the plaintiff presents evidence that “allow [s] a reasonable person to conclude that the harm more probably than not happened in such a way that the moving party should be held liable.” Little, 132 Wn. App. at 781 (citing Gardner, 27 Wn.2d at 808-09). The evidence presented may be circumstantial as long as it affords room for “ ‘reasonable minds to conclude that there is a greater probability that the conduct relied upon was the [cause in fact] of the injury than there is that it was not.’ ” Hernandez v. W. Farmers Ass’n, 76 Wn.2d 422, 426, 456 P.2d 1020 (1969) (quoting Wise v. Hayes, 58 Wn.2d 106, 108-09, 361 P.2d 171 (1961)).

Other Sections in This Document (58)

Full Text