Opinion
No. 26514-5-III.
August 26, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 06-2-05597-1, Robert D. Austin, J., entered September 21, 2007.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Kulik, J., concurred in by Schultheis, C.J., and Korsmo, J.
Barbara Caggiano filed a negligence action against Spokane Airport Board (Airport) and Southwest Airlines Company (Southwest) for injuries she sustained while employed by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as a baggage screener. Ms. Caggiano voluntarily dismissed her claim against the Airport and her claim against Southwest was dismissed on summary judgment. To maintain an action for negligence, Ms. Caggiano must show that Southwest owed her a duty of care and breached that duty.
Southwest did not lease or control the area where the injury occurred; it had no duty of care to Ms. Caggiano and, thus, could breach no duty. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Southwest.
FACTS
Ms. Caggiano was working for TSA as a baggage screener at the Airport. In January 2004, Ms. Caggiano injured her knee when a large suitcase fell off the end of a conveyor belt and struck her.
Ms. Caggiano filed suit, alleging that Southwest and the Airport were negligent because they knew, or should have known, that the removal and failure to replace or repair the electronic "'stop eye'" at the end of the Southwest conveyor belt created an unreasonable risk of injury to Ms. Caggiano and other TSA agents. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 6. Ms. Caggiano also asserted that Southwest and the Airport failed to maintain the conveyor belt in a reasonable condition and that the breach of this duty was the direct and proximate cause of her injuries.
The Airport moved for summary judgment based on declarations of their employees Ken Landrus and Mark Jucht, and the affidavit of Kelly Padgham. Ms. Caggiano voluntarily dismissed her claims against the Airport.
In January, Southwest made discovery requests to Ms. Caggiano but received no response. In April, Southwest moved to compel Ms. Caggiano's responses. Ms. Caggiano promised to deliver the answers at her April 12 deposition. On April 12, Ms. Caggiano provided unsigned and incomplete responses. She again promised signed, completed responses, but did not produce them.
Southwest renoted the motion to compel. Ms. Caggiano signed a stipulated order to compel answers to interrogatories and requests for production. The order stated that Ms. Caggiano's pleadings may be stricken and judgment may be entered dismissing her claims if she failed to answer the discovery requests.
On June 25, Southwest filed its motion for summary judgment, arguing that Southwest did not lease the baggage area where Ms. Caggiano was injured. Southwest also asserted that it had no obligation to maintain or repair the baggage conveyor belt.
Ms. Caggiano did not file responsive briefing or documentary evidence. Instead, she relied on the Airport's summary judgment pleadings. Southwest filed a motion to dismiss Ms. Caggiano's claim, based on the stipulated order allowing for dismissal.
The court heard both motions on June 29. In its letter ruling, the court stated that it was reluctant to enter summary judgment because of the outstanding discovery responses. The court stated:
Plaintiff is ordered to more fully answer defendant's interrogatories and
requests for production by August 22, 2007. If there is no further submissions by plaintiff regarding the summary judgment motion by Defendant and defense interrogatories are not supplemented as ordered this court will determine and grant defendants [sic] motion for summary judgment.
CP at 118 (emphasis added).
Ms. Caggiano did not meet the August 22 discovery deadline. On September 21, the court entered its order of summary judgment, dismissing Ms. Caggiano's claim against Southwest.
Ms. Caggiano appeals.
ANALYSIS
When reviewing an order of summary judgment, this court engages in the same inquiry as the trial court. Wilson v. Steinbach, 98 Wn.2d 434, 437, 656 P.2d 1030 (1982). All facts and inferences are considered in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. After the moving party submits adequate affidavits, the nonmoving party must set out specific facts rebutting the moving party's contentions and demonstrating the existence of a material issue of fact. Seven Gables Corp. v. MGM/UA Entm't Co., 106 Wn.2d 1, 13, 721 P.2d 1 (1986). Summary judgment should be granted only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. CR 56(c); Wilson, 98 Wn.2d at 437.
Preliminary Issues. There are two preliminary issues. First, Southwest argues that this court should not review this case because Ms. Caggiano failed to identify any issues pertaining to her assignments of error as required under RAP 10.3(a)(4). In Department of Social Health Services v. Latta, 92 Wn.2d 812, 817, 601 P.2d 520 (1979), the court evaluated an appeal where the appellant assigned error to an entire order. The court concluded that a reading of the trial court's order disclosed the specificity of the issue before the trial court which, in turn, disclosed the basis for the assigned error. Id. Here, Ms. Caggiano assigned error to the trial court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of Southwest. A reading of this order and the court's letter ruling is sufficient to disclose the specificity of issues before the trial court. Southwest need not search the entire record to understand the issues pertaining to Ms. Caggiano's assignments of error.
Second, Southwest points out that Ms. Caggiano makes no argument that the trial court erred by dismissing her claim based on her violation of discovery orders. Because we decide this case on a summary judgment basis, we need not reach the discovery order violation argument.
Summary Judgment. Southwest moved for summary judgment arguing that it could not be held liable for injuries that took place in an area Southwest did not lease or control. In response to Southwest's motion for summary judgment, Ms. Caggiano adopted the evidence submitted by the Airport. This evidence included the declarations of Ken Landrus and Mark Jucht, and the affidavit of Kelly Padgham. The question here is whether Ms. Caggiano has provided evidence indicating that Southwest had control over the area where Ms. Caggiano was injured. Southwest submits that it did not have control over the area where the injury occurred and, thus, had no duty to Ms. Caggiano. We agree.
The existence of a duty is a question of law. Minahan v. W. Wash. Fair Ass'n, 117 Wn. App. 881, 890, 73 P.3d 1019 (2003). Ms. Caggiano relies on the declarations of Mr. Jucht, deputy director of the Airport. It was Mr. Jucht's understanding that TSA was using the conveyor belt to transport baggage from the Southwest ticket counter to the TSA baggage screening area. Although Mr. Jucht stated the area was leased to Southwest, he also stated he was unaware of the arrangement between TSA and Southwest. Mr. Jucht did not dispute that TSA and its contractors constructed the baggage screening area, and designed and operated the conveyor belt system.
Ken Landrus, terminal maintenance supervisor for the Airport, stated that he has "personal knowledge of the conveyor belt which was in the Southwest Airlines baggage area where the Plaintiff was injured." CP at 29. Mr. Landrus explained that the Airport did not design or install the conveyor belt and that the Airport did not modify or repair the belt or supervise, direct, or approve the removal of the "'stop eye'" from the belt. CP at 29. Mr. Landrus stated that: "The responsibility for maintenance and repair was solely that of Southwest Airlines or perhaps TSA which was using the belt." CP at 29.
Southwest submitted the affidavits of Kevin Jones, Southwest's station manager. Mr. Jones oversaw all of Southwest's activities at the Airport. Mr. Jones described the changes TSA made to the baggage conveyor system that Southwest had been using. Specifically, Mr. Jones explained that TSA: (1) reversed the direction of the conveyor belt; (2) installed a roller system to an oversize baggage belt; (3) used the rollers and oversize baggage belt to move bags to the screening area; and (4) constructed a back room for screening. Mr. Jones stated that: "TSA and its contractors implemented the above changes on their own. Southwest had no control over what TSA and its contractors did." CP at 40. Mr. Jones stated that he had no knowledge of an electric eye until he saw the complaint for personal injuries. Finally, Mr. Jones stated that the area where Ms. Caggiano was when she was injured was not leased by Southwest.
Mr. Jones's supplemental declaration contains the lease between Southwest and the Airport, a schematic, and a photograph of "'the area adjoining Southwest Leasehold' as it existed before TSA took over that area." CP at 47. The declaration states that: "The place where Plaintiff states she was standing when her leg made contact with the bag has been drawn onto the schematic." CP at 47.
Mr. Landrus stated that he had personal knowledge of the conveyor belt located in Southwest's area where Ms. Caggiano was injured. Mr. Landrus also stated that Southwest or TSA was responsible for the maintenance and repair of the conveyor belt.
Ms. Caggiano has not produced specific facts rebutting Southwest's contentions and demonstrating that Southwest had control over the area where Ms. Caggiano sustained her injury. Based on this record, the court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of Southwest.
We affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Southwest.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
Korsmo, J., Schultheis, C.J., concur.