Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
18 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2023 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Arment v. Kmart Corp.green2 sentences2013This is inadequate. “[T]o invoke the Pimentel exception, a plaintiff must present some evidence that the unsafe condition in the particular location of the accident was reasonably foreseeable.” Arment, 79 Wn. 2013This is inadequate. “[T]o invoke the Pimentel exception, a plaintiff must present some evidence that the unsafe condition in the particular location of the accident was reasonably foreseeable.” Arment, 79 Wn. | 4 | 5 |
Wiltse v. Albertson's Inc.green2 sentences2017Even when the Pimentel exception applies, the plaintiff must still "establish liability by showing that the operator of the premises had failed to conduct periodic inspections with the frequency required by the foreseeability of risk." Id. ( citing r Pimentel, 100 Wn.2d at 49 ). 2017Even when the Pimentel exception applies, the plaintiff must still "establish liability by showing that the operator of the premises had failed to conduct periodic inspections with the frequency required by the foreseeability of risk." Id. ( citing r Pimentel, 100 Wn.2d at 49 ). | 1 | 10 |
Pimentel v. Roundup Companygreen2 sentences2023Id. at 50 . 5 No. 56715-6-II Where a patron sued a mall for injuries caused by slipping on a smear while walking in a common area in a mall, our Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgment order dismissing the action because the patron failed to present sufficient evidence to warrant the application of the Pimentel exception. 2023Id. at 50 . 5 No. 56715-6-II Where a patron sued a mall for injuries caused by slipping on a smear while walking in a common area in a mall, our Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgment order dismissing the action because the patron failed to present sufficient evidence to warrant the application of the Pimentel exception. | 1 | 6 |
Iwai v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Wiltse, 116 Wash.2d at 456 , 805 P.2d 793 . ¶ 20 In Iwai v. State, 129 Wash.2d 84 , 915 P.2d 1089 (1996), four justices sought to extend the Pimentel exception, reasoning that "`self-service' is not the key to the exception." Iwai, 129 Wash.2d at 100 , 915 P.2d 1089 (quoting Ingersoll, 123 Wash.2d at 654 , 869 P.2d 1014 ). 2006Wiltse, 116 Wash.2d at 456 , 805 P.2d 793 . ¶ 20 In Iwai v. State, 129 Wash.2d 84 , 915 P.2d 1089 (1996), four justices sought to extend the Pimentel exception, reasoning that "`self-service' is not the key to the exception." Iwai, 129 Wash.2d at 100 , 915 P.2d 1089 (quoting Ingersoll, 123 Wash.2d at 654 , 869 P.2d 1014 ). | 1 | 2 |
Fredrickson v. Bertolino's Tacoma, Inc.green2 sentences2017Fredrickson, 131 Wn. 2017Fredrickson, 131 Wn. | 1 | 1 |
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Smith, Jr.green2 sentences1988Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Smith, supra. An appropriate jury instruction based on the Pimentel rule should have been given. 1988Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Smith, supra. An appropriate jury instruction based on the Pimentel rule should have been given. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ingersoll v. DeBartolo, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013But the “Pimentel rule does not apply to the entire area of the store in which customers serve themselves.” Ingersoll, 123 Wn.2d at 653 . 2006Wiltse, 116 Wash.2d at 456 , 805 P.2d 793 . ¶ 20 In Iwai v. State, 129 Wash.2d 84 , 915 P.2d 1089 (1996), four justices sought to extend the Pimentel exception, reasoning that "`self-service' is not the key to the exception." Iwai, 129 Wash.2d at 100 , 915 P.2d 1089 (quoting Ingersoll, 123 Wash.2d at 654 , 869 P.2d 1014 ). | 10 | 1995–2023 |
Carlyle v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013App. 272, 277, 896 P.2d 750 , review denied, 128 Wn.2d 1004 (1995). ¶10 Case law illustrates the limited reach of the Pimentel exception. 2013App. 272, 277, 896 P.2d 750 , review denied, 128 Wn.2d 1004 (1995). ¶10 Case law illustrates the limited reach of the Pimentel exception. | 8 | 1995–2015 |
O'Donnell v. Zupan Enterprises, Inc.
green
2 sentences2023In contrast, where a customer sued a grocery store after slipping on a piece of lettuce in the checkout aisle, the court reversed the summary judgment order dismissing the action as the customer presented sufficient evidence to warrant the application of the Pimentel exception. 6 No. 56715-6-II O’Donnell v. Zupan Enters., Inc., 107 Wn. 2023In contrast, where a customer sued a grocery store after slipping on a piece of lettuce in the checkout aisle, the court reversed the summary judgment order dismissing the action as the customer presented sufficient evidence to warrant the application of the Pimentel exception. 6 No. 56715-6-II O’Donnell v. Zupan Enters., Inc., 107 Wn. | 4 | 2005–2023 |
O'DONNELL v. Zupan Enterprises, Inc.
green
2 sentences2023App. 854, 859 , 28 P.3d 799 (2001). 2023App. 854, 859 , 28 P.3d 799 (2001). | 2 | 2006–2023 |
Charlton v. Toys \R\" Us - Delaware
green
2 sentences2013Contrary to Tavai’s suggestions, “[w]hether the Pimentel exception applies is often determined as a matter of law.” Charlton, 158 Wn. 2013Contrary to Tavai’s suggestions, “[w]hether the Pimentel exception applies is often determined as a matter of law.” Charlton, 158 Wn. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Brant v. Market Basket Stores, Inc.
green
2 sentences2006Ingersoll, 123 Wash.2d at 652 , 869 P.2d 1014 (citing Brant v. Market Basket Stores, Inc., 72 Wash.2d 446, 451-52 , 433 P.2d 863 (1967)). [2] Pimentel v. Roundup Co., 100 Wash.2d 39 , 666 P.2d 888 (1983). [3] Other divisions of the Court of Appeals in Washington have agreed that the Pimentel exception applies solely to self-service entities. 2006Ingersoll, 123 Wash.2d at 652 , 869 P.2d 1014 (citing Brant v. Market Basket Stores, Inc., 72 Wash.2d 446, 451-52 , 433 P.2d 863 (1967)). [2] Pimentel v. Roundup Co., 100 Wash.2d 39 , 666 P.2d 888 (1983). [3] Other divisions of the Court of Appeals in Washington have agreed that the Pimentel exception applies solely to self-service entities. | 2 | 1991–2006 |
Iwai v. State
green
2 sentences2006Wiltse, 116 Wash.2d at 456 , 805 P.2d 793 . ¶ 20 In Iwai v. State, 129 Wash.2d 84 , 915 P.2d 1089 (1996), four justices sought to extend the Pimentel exception, reasoning that "`self-service' is not the key to the exception." Iwai, 129 Wash.2d at 100 , 915 P.2d 1089 (quoting Ingersoll, 123 Wash.2d at 654 , 869 P.2d 1014 ). 2006Wiltse, 116 Wash.2d at 456 , 805 P.2d 793 . ¶ 20 In Iwai v. State, 129 Wash.2d 84 , 915 P.2d 1089 (1996), four justices sought to extend the Pimentel exception, reasoning that "`self-service' is not the key to the exception." Iwai, 129 Wash.2d at 100 , 915 P.2d 1089 (quoting Ingersoll, 123 Wash.2d at 654 , 869 P.2d 1014 ). | 2 | 2005–2006 |
Schmidt v. Coogan
green
2 sentences2017Id. at 611-12 . 2017Id. at 611-12 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Tavai v. Walmart Stores, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016Id. 2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Jones v. Allstate Insurance
green
2 sentences2015Co.. 146 Wn.2d 291, 300 , 45 P.3d 1068 (2002). 9CR 56(c); Versuslaw. 2015Co.. 146 Wn.2d 291, 300 , 45 P.3d 1068 (2002). 9CR 56(c); Versuslaw. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Jones v. Allstate Ins. Co.
green
2 sentences2015Co.. 146 Wn.2d 291, 300 , 45 P.3d 1068 (2002). 9CR 56(c); Versuslaw. 2015Co.. 146 Wn.2d 291, 300 , 45 P.3d 1068 (2002). 9CR 56(c); Versuslaw. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Ciminski v. Finn Corp.
green
2 sentences1995If an unsafe condition was not reasonably foreseeable or inherent in Kmart’s operation of an in-store cafeteria, Arment’s claim does not fall within the Pimentel exception and the adequacy of Kmart’s training and inspection policies becomes immaterial. 2 See also Ciminski v. Finn Corp., 13 Wn. 1995If an unsafe condition was not reasonably foreseeable or inherent in Kmart’s operation of an in-store cafeteria, Arment’s claim does not fall within the Pimentel exception and the adequacy of Kmart’s training and inspection policies becomes immaterial. 2 See also Ciminski v. Finn Corp., 13 Wn. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Jackson v. K-Mart Corp.
green
2 sentences1995App. 815, 823 , 537 P.2d 850 , 85 A.L.R.3d 991 (summary judgment improper because the plaintiff who slipped *699 and fell in a self-serve cafeteria presented evidence that "there tended to be spills in the area where she fell, and that the floor in this area was sometimes greasy”), review denied, 86 Wn.2d 1002 (1975). 3 Jackson slipped and fell in the retail section of a Kmart store after she stepped in "an accumulation of a green liquid substance.” 840 P.2d at 464 . 1995App. 815, 823 , 537 P.2d 850 , 85 A.L.R.3d 991 (summary judgment improper because the plaintiff who slipped *699 and fell in a self-serve cafeteria presented evidence that "there tended to be spills in the area where she fell, and that the floor in this area was sometimes greasy”), review denied, 86 Wn.2d 1002 (1975). 3 Jackson slipped and fell in the retail section of a Kmart store after she stepped in "an accumulation of a green liquid substance.” 840 P.2d at 464 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.