Adamson v. Port of Bellingham

923 F.3d 728
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Adamson v. Port of Bellingham. Read the opinion of the Court — 907 F.3d 1122
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided May 14, 2019·No. No. 16-35314·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

We certified two questions to the Washington State Supreme Court. Adamson v. Port of Bellingham , 899 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2018). We said that if "the Washington State Supreme Court decides that a priority usage agreement does not absolve a landlord of liability as a possessor of property, we will affirm the district court." Id. at 1051.

The Washington State Supreme Court so decided. "The fact that AMHS was in berth and using the passenger ramp at the time of the incident does not affect the Port's liability as a landowner-lessor. We answer the first certified question in the affirmative." Adamson v. Port of Bellingham , 438 P.3d 522, 528 (Wash. 2019). Specifically, it held that "that a priority use provision, an affirmative obligation to maintain and repair, and the ability to lease the property to others together create sufficient control of the property such that a landowner who leases the property is held liable as a premises owner." Id. at 525.

We affirm the district court.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Adamson v. Port of Bellingham, 923 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2019).

923 F.3d 728 (Adamson v. Port of Bellingham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Shannon Adamson v. Port of Bellingham
899 F.3d 1047 (Ninth Circuit, 2018)
Adamson v. Port of Bellingham
438 P.3d 522 (Washington Supreme Court, 2019)