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/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (33)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
- Pruitt v. Savage, 128 Wash. App. 327 (2005)
Full Text
603 chars¶11 Michael raises three questions on appeal. (1) Does Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343 (1965) apply? (2) Does an implied warranty of habitability apply? (3) Did McMenamin’s owe and breach a duty of reasonable care because it examined the garage door in 1996?4 In addressing these questions, we take the evidence in the light most favorable to Michael, because he was the nonmoving party below.5 The evidence, however, is limited to that admitted at trial.6 Hence, we do not consider pretrial depositions or declarations unless the certified record on appeal shows that they were admitted at trial. I