Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Citation
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Parent Document
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Effective Date
- 2003-02-11
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4934783/lian-v-stalick/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (31)
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
- Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
Full Text
393 charsA finding that the condition was dangerous is foundational to a claim under section 17.6. But Mr. Stalick does not challenge the court’s findings as to the dangerous condition of the stairs. Instead, Mr. Stalick contends the court erred by ruling that he was liable under section 17.6 under a theory of negligent repair and that he breached the implied warranty of habitability under the RLTA.