Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)

Citation: Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
Parent Document: Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2005-06-14
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4939487/pruitt-v-savage/ ↗

Full Text

893 chars

¶6 Dennis Martin, a professional engineer retained by Michael, examined the door before trial. He concluded that the door generally would stay open “if... it [didn’t] rebound off the back stop.”2 There was a point, however, at which “you could set the door when you’d get it up high enough, and the door would stay there momentarily. The counterbalancing springs would tend to help balance it right... at that point. And then the door would very slowly begin to creep towards the closing direction.” Then, after thirty seconds to a minute, “it would just start going quite rapidly and slam down.”3 Martin determined that the rails on which the door moved were angled slightly toward the street instead of being level; that the problem could have been fixed by angling the rails slightly towards the back of the garage; and that if that had been done, the door would not have closed on Michael.

Other Sections in This Document (33)

Full Text