Defendants Jack and Claire Lein owned and lived on Willow Creek Farm from 1980 through 2004. The farm manager, Stewart, and his girlfriend, plaintiff Tambra Curtis, also lived on the farm during this time.
While Curtis was walking across a wooden dock located on the farm, the dock collapsed, and she fell, suffering a hairline fracture to her tibia.
Consequently, Curtis brought a personal injury suit against the Leins, hoping to collect damages for her personal injury. After Curtis’s injury, the defendants destroyed the dock, claiming that the soon-to-be new owners of the farm planned to build a school on the property and, thus, there was no reason to replace the broken dock. Because there was no longer any evidence of the condition of the dock, the plaintiff invoked the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to support her case of negligence. Curtis asserted that a wooden dock does not give way unless the creators were negligent in their creation and maintenance of the structure. The trial court granted the defendants’ summary judgment and ruled that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply. According to the court, res ipsa loquitur did not apply because the dock could have collapsed for reasons other than negligence. The plaintiff appealed.
The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling, both courts concluding that res ipsa loquitur did not apply, but for different reasons. In contrast to the trial court, the court of appeals reasoned that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur could be applied as evidence of negligence but that the plaintiff still had the burden of proving that the flaws in the dock’s construction were discoverable by the defendants.

After the court of appeals affirmed the ruling of the trial court, the plaintiff sought 

1. Suppose you are the judge in this case. Do you think that Jack and Claire had a duty of care to protect Curtis? Why or why not?
2. How do you think the court ruled on review? Why?