Court: Court of Appeals of Washington; November 30, 1992; Washington; State Appellate Court
The case is remanded for reconsideration following the Supreme Court's decision in Sidis v. Brodie/Dohrmann, Inc., which addresses whether serving one defendant in a lawsuit tolls the statute of limitations for another defendant in a different cause of action, when both causes share a common factual issue. In Sidis, it was established that under RCW 4.16.170, serving one defendant in a multi-defendant case within 90 days of filing tolls the statute of limitations for unserved defendants. The current case involves Rose Wakeman, who sustained injuries from two vehicle accidents involving different defendants, Lommers and Taylor. A complaint naming both was filed just before the statute of limitations expired for the incident with Lommers, and Taylor was served within the required time. However, Lommers was not served until after the 90-day period. Lommers sought summary judgment based on a statute of limitations defense, which the trial court denied. An appellate court reversed this decision, citing Sidis, but the Supreme Court later reversed that court and remanded the case for reevaluation. The relevant tolling statute states that an action is initiated upon filing or service, and if service is not completed before filing, it must be done within 90 days. The case distinguishes itself from Sidis as it involves two separate causes of action against different defendants, whereas Sidis involved a single incident with multiple defendants. Lommers argues that the distinctions in the nature of the actions should exempt the case from the Sidis ruling regarding tolling the statute of limitations.
The phrase "one or more of the defendants" in RCW 4.16.170, as interpreted in Sidis, may refer to single causes of action involving multiple defendants, meaning the 3-year statute of limitations against Lommers would not be tolled. This interpretation aligns with the purpose of the statute of limitations, which aims to protect against stale claims and provide certainty in litigation. A ruling in favor of the plaintiff would allow the recovery of damages from Lommers, despite her statute of limitations defense, due to a subsequent accident introducing new factual issues. The Sidis court found the language regarding "one or more of the defendants" to be unambiguous and applicable to multidefendant actions, without suggesting that the characterization of tortfeasors affects its meaning. Consequently, Wakeman may proceed against Lommers, despite her being served late, as the trial court's denial of her motion for summary judgment is affirmed and the case is remanded for trial. The case also references Sidis, where the plaintiff served only one of three defendants timely, with the others brought in via a third-party complaint. The applicability of Sidis based solely on a common question of law remains undecided.
