The state Supreme Court on Thursday overturned a ruling that would have entitled a Vancouver woman, who was struck by a Washington State Patrol car, to a new trial. Instead, the case is being sent back to the Washington Court of Appeals for additional review.
Deborah R. Peralta appealed her partially won lawsuit against the State Patrol after she was unable to collect the roughly $529,000 a Clark County jury awarded her for her injuries. Peralta was intoxicated when she stepped into a Hazel Dell road on Aug. 22, 2009, and was struck by Trooper Ryan Tanner. The jury assigned her 58 percent of the blame.
State law prevents plaintiffs from collecting damages if they were injured as a result of being intoxicated and were found to be more than 50 percent at fault.
Peralta, then 25, had been drinking alcohol at a party before the crash. She left on foot and called her brother to pick her up. Her brother had trouble finding her and called her cellphone to pinpoint her location.
She told her brother she saw his car and stepped into the westbound lane of Northwest 78th Street near the intersection of Anderson Avenue so he could see her. However, the vehicle Peralta thought belonged to her brother was actually Tanner’s patrol car. Tanner was unable to stop in time.
Superior Court Judge David Gregerson had ruled during the trial that Peralta was legally intoxicated — having a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or higher — after she previously admitted to consuming alcohol the night of the crash. An emergency room blood test found Peralta had a blood alcohol level of 0.167.
Her attorneys, Don Jacobs of Vancouver and Mike Bloom of Portland, disputed the blood test result based on findings by a toxicology expert they hired but who was unable to testify at trial.
In December 2015, a state appeals court found that Gregerson had ruled in error and that Peralta’s admission didn’t satisfy the definition of legal intoxication. Thus, the appellate court ruled, Gregerson incorrectly instructed the jury. The appeals court also found several other evidentiary issues with the trial.
Thursday’s Supreme Court decision sides with Gregerson’s ruling and instructions about Peralta’s intoxication. The higher court ruled that the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion when it interpreted Peralta’s admission.
The case will now go back to the Court of Appeals to determine if the other evidentiary issues prejudiced the trial and if Peralta should be entitled to a new one.
With the admission of intoxication back in, the only way Peralta could collect damages — if granted a new trial — is if a jury finds she was only 50 percent or less at fault.
