Snilsberg v. Lake Washington Club

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that, because the venue of the diving accident was not open to the public, no special relationship imposed a duty to warn
• holding that applicability of primary assumption of the risk is “[g]enerally a question for the jury” but that it “may be decided as a matter of law” when the evidence is conclusive
• concluding that appellant’s actual knowledge of the danger of diving into the lake from the dock was established by her general knowledge as an experienced swimmer and diver and specific knowledge of the shallow water at the dock
• explaining that the scope of employment can be “determined as a matter of law” at the summary-judgment stage “when the evidence is conclusive on all the elements or there is no evidence to support a necessary element”
• \Factors to consider in determining whether negligent acts occurred in the scope of employment include....\
• “Factors to consider in determining whether negligent acts occurred in the scope of employment include....”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).