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
622 chars¶20 “As a general rule, one who undertakes to act in a given situation has a duty to follow through with reasonable care, even though he or she had no duty to act in the first instance.”16 Although the evidence here is disputed, it shows, when viewed in the light most favorable to Michael, that McMenamin’s undertook to act with respect to the door’s “bouncfing]” back immediately after the door was opened. The evidence does not show that McMenamin’s undertook to act with respect to the door’s falling at random times, or with respect to all of the door’s possible defects. We conclude that the trial court did not err.