Stout v. Warren

290 P.3d 972 (2012)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P was charged with multiple felonies related to the manufacture of methamphetamine. Bail was set at $50,000, and P entered into an agreement with CJ Johnson, a sole proprietorship, which posted the bail bond. Stout failed to appear at two hearings. A bench warrant was issued and the Pierce County prosecuting attorney's office notified CJ Johnson that it would forfeit its bond. CJ Johnson entered into a contract with CCSR, a business solely consisting of Michael Golden, to “secure the physical custody of P and surrender him … to” the Pierce County jail. Carl Warren contacted Golden, stating that he could apprehend P. Golden faxed Warren the necessary paperwork. P left a residence in Pierce County and was traveling down a gravel roadway when a 1977 Chevy 4x4 pickup truck driven by Warren pulled out and accelerated rapidly toward him. P also accelerated but Warren rammed the rear end of P's 1997 Toyota Corolla, causing it to collide with a tree. P was traveling at least 55 miles per hour, and Warren was traveling at up to 70 miles per hour. P was pinned in the vehicle and eventually had to have one leg amputated. P sued the subcontractor, the contractor, and the owners of CJ Johnson. P claimed that the company had contracted with Warren to perform an activity that was abnormally dangerous or involved a special danger or peculiar risk of harm. The trial court granted the Johnsons' motion for summary judgment, finding that “Fugitive Recovery is not an ‘inherently dangerous’ occupation” rendering Johnson vicariously liable for Warren's action. P appealed the order dismissing Johnson. The Court of Appeals assumed that fugitive apprehension is an inherently dangerous activity. It then held as a matter of first impression, that “a person who triggered and knowingly participated” in the inherently dangerous activity, “while aware of some attendant risk,” may not take advantage of this theory of vicarious liability. P once again appealed.