Reese v. Montgomery Ward Co.

Washington Supreme Court

Reese v. Montgomery Ward Co.

400 P.2d 315, 65 Wash. 2d 953, 1965 Wash. LEXIS 804

CourtWashington Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 18, 1965

DocketNo. 37611

StatusPublished

This text of 400 P.2d 315 (Reese v. Montgomery Ward Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reese v. Montgomery Ward Co., 400 P.2d 315, 65 Wash. 2d 953, 1965 Wash. LEXIS 804 (Wash. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an action by the plaintiff (respondent), Donald Reese, for the recovery of damages for personal injuries sustained while an observer at a contest conducted in the shopping-center parking lot of the defendant (appellant), the Montgomery Ward Company store, in Longview. The injuries occurred when the plaintiff, on his way to his parked automobile, skirted the edge of the crowd participating in the contest. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.

We have considered the defendant’s assignments of error. The record discloses that the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s damage were established by substantial evidence. The defenses of contributory negligence and volenti non fit injuria were not established to the satisfaction of the trier of the facts. This determination is supported by the record.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an action by the plaintiff (respondent), Donald Reese, for the recovery of damages for personal injuries sustained while an observer at a contest conducted in the shopping-center parking lot of the defendant (appellant), the Montgomery Ward Company store, in Longview. The injuries occurred when the plaintiff, on his way to his parked automobile, skirted the edge of the crowd participating in the contest. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.

We have considered the defendant’s assignments of error. The record discloses that the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s damage were established by substantial evidence. The defenses of contributory negligence and volenti non fit injuria were not established to the satisfaction of the trier of the facts. This determination is supported by the record.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

400 P.2d 315, 65 Wash. 2d 953, 1965 Wash. LEXIS 804, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reese-v-montgomery-ward-co-wash-1965.