IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
ROY D. CHEESMAN, No. 85475-5-I
Appellant, DIVISION ONE v.
SOUND FORD, FRANK SCHMIDT, UNPUBLISHED OPINION ADAM LARSON, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, JAMES FARLEY, JR., WILLIAM FORD, JR.,
Respondent.
SMITH, C.J. — Roy Cheesman sued Ford Motor Company for product
liability after the metal latch of his seat belt allegedly failed to retract fully and
injured him when he entered his car. The trial court granted Ford’s motion for
summary judgment, dismissing the case with prejudice and concluding that
Cheesman failed to meet his burden of proving that the seat belt was defective or
that it caused him harm. Cheesman filed an untimely motion for reconsideration,
which the trial court denied. On appeal, Cheesman contends that the trial court
abused its discretion in denying his motion for reconsideration. Because the
court did not err in denying the motion, we affirm.
FACTS
In July 2016, Roy Cheesman purchased a new 2016 Ford Fiesta from
Sound Ford, a car dealership in Renton, Washington. Three years later,
Cheesman’s car was rear-ended by another vehicle while stopped at a red light. No. 85475-5-I/2
The driver in the other vehicle fled the scene. Cheesman, who had gotten out of
his own car, hastily climbed back in to chase the other driver. Eventually, the
other driver stopped and the police responded to the accident.
Two days after the collision, Cheesman sought medical care. He
complained of a head injury, dizziness, and shoulder pain. He attributed all pain
to the collision, alleging aggravation of a preexisting shoulder injury. He did not
mention back pain or attribute any of his complaints to a defect in the seat belt.
Cheesman then initiated a slew of lawsuits against the driver that rear-
ended him, the driver’s insurer, and several of the insurer’s employees. At the
conclusion of those lawsuits, he sued his own attorney for allegedly failing to
obtain an appropriate settlement.
Over two years after the accident, and after all of his other lawsuits had
settled, Cheesman alleged that he was injured by a defective driver’s side seat
belt during the accident. He sought treatment from a chiropractor in April 2022.
During this April appointment, Cheesman informed the chiropractor that he
thought his back pain was caused by a faulty seat belt when he jumped back into
his car to chase the other driver. This was the first time he ever attributed his
injuries to the seat belt.
Two weeks later, Cheesman sued Ford Motor Company (Ford), two Ford
executives, Sound Ford, and two Sound Ford employees. Each claim centered
on his theory that he injured his back when he re-entered his car to chase the
other driver and the seat belt latch “stabbed” him in the back. He also alleged a
2 No. 85475-5-I/3
breach of warranty. The trial court dismissed Cheesman’s claims against all
parties except Ford. The court similarly dismissed the warranty claim, noting that
Cheesman did not present his vehicle for warranty repair during the warranty
period. Cheesman’s product liability claim against Ford, asserting a defective
seat belt, was the only remaining cause of action. Ford then moved for summary
judgment.
In April 2023, the trial court held a hearing on Ford’s motion for summary
judgment. Ford argued that Cheesman provided no evidence that his seat belt
was not reasonably safe or that it had caused him any harm. Ford also noted
that Cheesman admitted during his deposition that he “did not see really what
injured [him] on [his] back.” Ford then provided evidence that the driver’s side
seat belt in Cheesman’s car appeared to be functioning correctly. Kenneth
Cooper, a service technician, inspected the seat belt during discovery
proceedings and determined that it retracted properly. Jennifer Buckman, a Ford
design analysis engineer, similarly determined that the seat belt was operating as
designed. Buckman also testified that Cheesman’s proposed scenario, where
the seat belt failed to retract and stood out from the seat, was impossible when a
driver was exiting the vehicle.
In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, Cheesman submitted
staged photos showing that the seat belt latch could be positioned to point
outwards from the seat.1 He offered no evidence to counter Ford’s statement
1 Cheesman acknowledged that he staged the photos to show the seat belt latch sticking out from the seat.
3 No. 85475-5-I/4
that it was impossible for the seat belt to remain in that position as the driver
exited the vehicle. When asked directly by the court, Cheesman acknowledged
that he had no medical evidence to support his claim and that no one had been
able to tell him that his seat belt was malfunctioning.
The trial court granted Ford’s motion for summary judgment, concluding
that there was insufficient proof of an injury caused by the seat belt and
insufficient proof that the seat belt was not reasonably safe.
Over two weeks later, Cheesman moved for reconsideration, arguing that
the court erred in concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact.
The court denied Cheesman’s motion. The court also awarded Ford its attorney
fees and costs as the prevailing party.
Cheesman appeals.
ANALYSIS
Motion for Reconsideration
Cheesman argues that the court abused its discretion in denying his
motion for reconsideration. Because the motion was untimely, we disagree.
We review a court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of
discretion. River House Dev., Inc. v. Integrus Architecture, PS, 167 Wn. App.
221, 231, 272 P.2d 289 (2012). A court abuses its discretion if its decision is
“manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable
reasons.” River House, 167 Wn. App. 221 at 231.
4 No. 85475-5-I/5
Under CR 59, a party must move for reconsideration “not later than 10
days” after the entry of an order. CR 59(b). The trial court has no discretion to
extend the time for a party to file a motion for reconsideration. CR 6(b)(2); In re
Marriage of Doneen, 197 Wn. App. 941, 951, 391 P.3d 594 (2017). The denial of
an untimely motion for reconsideration is not an abuse of discretion. Griffin v.
Draper, 32 Wn. App. 611, 613, 649 P.2d 123 (1982). We hold pro se litigants to
the same standards as attorneys. Winter v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 12
Wn. App. 2d 815, 844, 460 P.3d 667 (2020).
Here, the trial court entered its order granting Ford’s motion for summary
judgment on April 21, 2023. Cheesman filed his motion for reconsideration
17 days later, on May 8, 2023. Because Cheesman filed his motion more than
10 days after the court’s order granting summary judgment, the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in denying the motion. We note that Cheesman experienced
some difficulty in filing his motion for reconsideration, including questions about
notice and oral argument. While we acknowledge these difficulties, they do not
extend the time frame within which he needed to file the motion for
reconsideration. We reiterate that pro se litigants are held to the same standard
as attorneys.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
ROY D. CHEESMAN, No. 85475-5-I
Appellant, DIVISION ONE v.
SOUND FORD, FRANK SCHMIDT, UNPUBLISHED OPINION ADAM LARSON, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, JAMES FARLEY, JR., WILLIAM FORD, JR.,
Respondent.
SMITH, C.J. — Roy Cheesman sued Ford Motor Company for product
liability after the metal latch of his seat belt allegedly failed to retract fully and
injured him when he entered his car. The trial court granted Ford’s motion for
summary judgment, dismissing the case with prejudice and concluding that
Cheesman failed to meet his burden of proving that the seat belt was defective or
that it caused him harm. Cheesman filed an untimely motion for reconsideration,
which the trial court denied. On appeal, Cheesman contends that the trial court
abused its discretion in denying his motion for reconsideration. Because the
court did not err in denying the motion, we affirm.
FACTS
In July 2016, Roy Cheesman purchased a new 2016 Ford Fiesta from
Sound Ford, a car dealership in Renton, Washington. Three years later,
Cheesman’s car was rear-ended by another vehicle while stopped at a red light. No. 85475-5-I/2
The driver in the other vehicle fled the scene. Cheesman, who had gotten out of
his own car, hastily climbed back in to chase the other driver. Eventually, the
other driver stopped and the police responded to the accident.
Two days after the collision, Cheesman sought medical care. He
complained of a head injury, dizziness, and shoulder pain. He attributed all pain
to the collision, alleging aggravation of a preexisting shoulder injury. He did not
mention back pain or attribute any of his complaints to a defect in the seat belt.
Cheesman then initiated a slew of lawsuits against the driver that rear-
ended him, the driver’s insurer, and several of the insurer’s employees. At the
conclusion of those lawsuits, he sued his own attorney for allegedly failing to
obtain an appropriate settlement.
Over two years after the accident, and after all of his other lawsuits had
settled, Cheesman alleged that he was injured by a defective driver’s side seat
belt during the accident. He sought treatment from a chiropractor in April 2022.
During this April appointment, Cheesman informed the chiropractor that he
thought his back pain was caused by a faulty seat belt when he jumped back into
his car to chase the other driver. This was the first time he ever attributed his
injuries to the seat belt.
Two weeks later, Cheesman sued Ford Motor Company (Ford), two Ford
executives, Sound Ford, and two Sound Ford employees. Each claim centered
on his theory that he injured his back when he re-entered his car to chase the
other driver and the seat belt latch “stabbed” him in the back. He also alleged a
2 No. 85475-5-I/3
breach of warranty. The trial court dismissed Cheesman’s claims against all
parties except Ford. The court similarly dismissed the warranty claim, noting that
Cheesman did not present his vehicle for warranty repair during the warranty
period. Cheesman’s product liability claim against Ford, asserting a defective
seat belt, was the only remaining cause of action. Ford then moved for summary
judgment.
In April 2023, the trial court held a hearing on Ford’s motion for summary
judgment. Ford argued that Cheesman provided no evidence that his seat belt
was not reasonably safe or that it had caused him any harm. Ford also noted
that Cheesman admitted during his deposition that he “did not see really what
injured [him] on [his] back.” Ford then provided evidence that the driver’s side
seat belt in Cheesman’s car appeared to be functioning correctly. Kenneth
Cooper, a service technician, inspected the seat belt during discovery
proceedings and determined that it retracted properly. Jennifer Buckman, a Ford
design analysis engineer, similarly determined that the seat belt was operating as
designed. Buckman also testified that Cheesman’s proposed scenario, where
the seat belt failed to retract and stood out from the seat, was impossible when a
driver was exiting the vehicle.
In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, Cheesman submitted
staged photos showing that the seat belt latch could be positioned to point
outwards from the seat.1 He offered no evidence to counter Ford’s statement
1 Cheesman acknowledged that he staged the photos to show the seat belt latch sticking out from the seat.
3 No. 85475-5-I/4
that it was impossible for the seat belt to remain in that position as the driver
exited the vehicle. When asked directly by the court, Cheesman acknowledged
that he had no medical evidence to support his claim and that no one had been
able to tell him that his seat belt was malfunctioning.
The trial court granted Ford’s motion for summary judgment, concluding
that there was insufficient proof of an injury caused by the seat belt and
insufficient proof that the seat belt was not reasonably safe.
Over two weeks later, Cheesman moved for reconsideration, arguing that
the court erred in concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact.
The court denied Cheesman’s motion. The court also awarded Ford its attorney
fees and costs as the prevailing party.
Cheesman appeals.
ANALYSIS
Motion for Reconsideration
Cheesman argues that the court abused its discretion in denying his
motion for reconsideration. Because the motion was untimely, we disagree.
We review a court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of
discretion. River House Dev., Inc. v. Integrus Architecture, PS, 167 Wn. App.
221, 231, 272 P.2d 289 (2012). A court abuses its discretion if its decision is
“manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable
reasons.” River House, 167 Wn. App. 221 at 231.
4 No. 85475-5-I/5
Under CR 59, a party must move for reconsideration “not later than 10
days” after the entry of an order. CR 59(b). The trial court has no discretion to
extend the time for a party to file a motion for reconsideration. CR 6(b)(2); In re
Marriage of Doneen, 197 Wn. App. 941, 951, 391 P.3d 594 (2017). The denial of
an untimely motion for reconsideration is not an abuse of discretion. Griffin v.
Draper, 32 Wn. App. 611, 613, 649 P.2d 123 (1982). We hold pro se litigants to
the same standards as attorneys. Winter v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 12
Wn. App. 2d 815, 844, 460 P.3d 667 (2020).
Here, the trial court entered its order granting Ford’s motion for summary
judgment on April 21, 2023. Cheesman filed his motion for reconsideration
17 days later, on May 8, 2023. Because Cheesman filed his motion more than
10 days after the court’s order granting summary judgment, the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in denying the motion. We note that Cheesman experienced
some difficulty in filing his motion for reconsideration, including questions about
notice and oral argument. While we acknowledge these difficulties, they do not
extend the time frame within which he needed to file the motion for
reconsideration. We reiterate that pro se litigants are held to the same standard
as attorneys.
And even if the court had considered Cheesman’s motion for
reconsideration, denying the motion was not an abuse of discretion because the
summary judgment order dismissing the case was proper.
5 No. 85475-5-I/6
Summary Judgment
In his notice of appeal, Cheesman only mentions the court’s order denying
his motion for reconsideration. His briefing on appeal, however, challenges the
court’s grant of summary judgment. To the extent that Cheesman intended to
appeal the summary judgment order, his arguments are similarly untimely.
In general, RAP 5.2(a) provides that a notice of appeal must be filed in the
trial court within 30 days. A timely motion for reconsideration filed in the trial
court, for example, will extend the time for an appeal to within 30 days of the
order deciding the motion for reconsideration. RAP 5.2(a), (e). An untimely
motion, however, will not extend the 30 day deadline. Cox v. Kroger Co., 2 Wn.
App. 2d 395, 409, 409 P.3d 1191 (2018). And “an appellate court will only in
extraordinary circumstances and to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice extend
the time within which a party must file a notice of appeal.” RAP 18.8(b).
Here, Cheesman filed his notice of appeal 55 days after the trial court
entered its order on summary judgment. Because the untimely motion for
reconsideration did not extend Cheesman’s window to appeal the underlying
summary judgment order, he is well outside the 30 day limit. And Cheesman
neither asks for an extension of time, nor articulates any extraordinary
circumstances warranting review to prevent the gross miscarriage of justice.
Cheesman did not appeal within the required time frame and there are no
exceptions under which to extend that time.
6 No. 85475-5-I/7
Even if Cheesman had appealed the grant of summary judgment within
the appropriate time frame, the court did not err in concluding that Cheesman
failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact so as to survive summary
We review a trial court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, engaging in
the same inquiry as the trial court. Keck v. Collins, 184 Wn.2d 358, 370, 357
P.3d 1080 (2015). On review, we consider the evidence and all reasonable
inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Keck,
184 Wn.2d at 370. Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue
exists as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. CR 56(c). A genuine issue of material fact exists “if reasonable
minds could differ on facts which control the outcome of the proceeding.”
Ghodsee v. City of Kent, 21 Wn. App. 2d 762, 768, 508 P.3d 193 (2022),
remanded, 1 Wn.3d 101, 526 P.3d 852 (2023). A party opposing summary
judgment cannot rely simply on allegations, denials, opinions, or conclusory
statements, but instead must provide specific facts establishing a genuine issue
for trial. Allen v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd., 138 Wn. App. 564, 570-71, 157 P.3d 406
(2007).
The “Washington Product Liability Act” (WPLA) imposes liability on a
manufacturer if a product is not reasonably safe as designed. RCW 7.72.030(1).
To maintain a claim under the WPLA, a plaintiff must show “(1) a manufacturer’s
product (2) was not reasonably safe as designed and (3) caused harm to the
7 No. 85475-5-I/8
plaintiff.” Thongchoom v. Graco Child. Prod., Inc., 117 Wn. App. 299, 304, 71
P.3d 214 (2003).
Here, Cheesman cannot show that his seat belt was not reasonably safe
as designed or that it caused him any harm. In support of his assertion that his
seat belt was defective, Cheesman only provides conclusory statements that the
seat belt failed to retract properly. Ford provided a declaration from Buckman
detailing that the 2016 Ford Fiesta’s design specifications for safety seat belts
met both the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 49 C.F.R. § 571.210
(2013), and Ford design specifications. Cheesman admitted before the trial court
that the photos he submitted in support of his contention were staged. Moreover,
the staged photos only show that it is possible for someone to place the seat belt
latch upright against the seat; they do not prove that his seat belt remained in
that position.
And although one of the videos submitted by Ford shows that it is possible
for a seat belt to retract slowly, Cooper demonstrated that tapping the belt will
slide it back into place. The video does not, as Cheesman asserts, establish that
the seat belt was malfunctioning.
Further, when asked directly by the judge if he had any medical records to
show that he had been injured by the seat belt, Cheesman acknowledged he had
no medical evidence to support his claim. When the court then asked Cheesman
whether a technician or mechanic had told him that his seat belt was not
functioning properly, Cheesman again acknowledged that no one had been able
8 No. 85475-5-I/9
to tell him that anything was wrong. And finally, in his deposition, Cheesman
conceded that he “did not really see what injured [him] on [his] back.” Without
any evidence that the seat belt was defective, that he was injured, or even that
he knew what had injured him, Cheesman’s allegation that the seat belt caused
the back injury is purely speculative. As such, it is insufficient to prove a genuine
issue of material fact. Because no genuine issue of material fact existed, the trial
court did not err in granting Ford’s motion for summary judgment.
We affirm.
WE CONCUR: