Beckmann v. Spokane Transit Authority

721 P.2d 28, 44 Wash. App. 132
CourtCourt of Appeals of Washington
DecidedJune 17, 1986
DocketNo. 6924-9-III
StatusPublished

This text of 721 P.2d 28 (Beckmann v. Spokane Transit Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Beckmann v. Spokane Transit Authority, 721 P.2d 28, 44 Wash. App. 132 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

Munson, J.

A party whose complaint fails to affirmatively plead RCW 4.84.250,1 providing for attorney fees when the damages claimed are under a certain amount, is not entitled to recover such fees.

Virginia Beckmann was injured when a Spokane Transit Authority (Spokane Transit) bus collided with her automobile on April 12, 1983. Her complaint for personal injuries did not seek a specific amount in damages pursuant to RCW 4.28.360.2 Although the complaint did request attorney fees, no citation of authority was set forth.3

[134]*134Eleven days before trial, Ms. Beckmann served Spokane Transit with a written offer to settle in the amount of $3,000, making specific reference to RCW 4.84.280.4 Spokane Transit did not respond to the settlement offer; a bench trial proceeded as scheduled.

During closing arguments, Ms. Beckmann asked for $18,000 in damages. The court, finding Spokane Transit 100 percent negligent, awarded Ms. Beckmann $4,360 in damages; she was also awarded $2,050 in attorney fees pursuant to RCW 4.84.250.

Spokane Transit contends the court erred in awarding Ms. Beckmann her attorney fees pursuant to RCW 4.84.250 because she did not (1) expressly plead a specific amount of damages of $5,000 or less as required by that statute, or (2) request the fees under RCW 4.84.250.

Ms. Beckmann responds that she was prohibited from expressly pleading a specific amount of damages in her complaint by RCW 4.28.360. Notwithstanding, had she pleaded RCW 4.84.250, she would have put Spokane Transit on notice of her claim for fees under that statute; since she did not, she is not entitled to such fees pursuant to that statute. Tatum v. R & R Cable, Inc., 30 Wn. App. 580, 585, 636 P.2d 508 (1981), review denied, 97 Wn.2d 1007 (1982); see Warren v. Glascam Builders, Inc., 40 Wn. App. 229, 231-32, 698 P.2d 565 (1985); see also West Coast Stationary Eng'rs Welfare Fund v. Kennewick, 39 Wn. App. 466, 475-76, 694 P.2d 1101 (1985).

[135]*135Nevertheless, Ms. Beckmann asserts her written offer of settlement for $3,000, specifically referring to RCW 4.84-.280, provided adequate notice to Spokane Transit that she was seeking attorney fees under the statute. However, we hold, even assuming her offer to settle did give notice, she waived her right to such fees by asking for more than $5,000 in damages at trial.5

We reverse with respect to attorney fees.

Green, C.J., and McInturff, J., concur.

Reconsideration denied August 5, 1986.

Review granted by Supreme Court October 29, 1986.

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

Related

Warren v. Glascam Builders, Inc.
698 P.2d 565 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1985)
Tatum v. R & R CABLE, INC.
636 P.2d 508 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1981)
West Coast Stationary Engineers Welfare Fund v. City of Kennewick
694 P.2d 1101 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
721 P.2d 28, 44 Wash. App. 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beckmann-v-spokane-transit-authority-washctapp-1986.