Davis Rothwell Secures Defense Verdict for Landlord, Property Manager, and Former Employee After 9-Day Trial in King County, Washington

On May  20, 2026, after a nine-day jury trial before Judge Cindi Port in King County Superior Court, Keith M. Liguori and Katrina P. Mendoza, alongside co-counsel Kim West and Jason Hoeft of Mix Sanders Thompson, obtained a significant defense win on behalf of their clients, a landlord, a property manager, and a former janitor.  In Cottrell v. MGRE 334, LLC et al, Cause No. 23-2-20301-1, Plaintiff, an elderly, wheelchair-bound man with a substantial medical history, brought suit against an independent-living apartment complex, alleging that a former tenant, who worked part-time for the complex as a janitor in exchange for rent credit, saw him on the ground in need medical attention when the janitor stepped into Plaintiff’s apartment to help move in some grocery bags that were left outside his door, and then left Plaintiff there.  Plaintiff was later found down in his apartment when the janitor and property manager conducted a welfare check at the request of the Plaintiff’s son.  Plaintiff suffered pressure wounds, dehydration, and resultant encephalopathy due to his preexisting cognitive issues.  Plaintiff also claimed that the incident accelerated his need for assisted living by five years, even though, pre-incident, the Plaintiff was regularly experiencing extended hospitalizations and repeatedly calling 911 to get help after falls, due to complications of his pre-existing disability and health issues.

The case presented an issue of first impression, with the Court imposing a rigid application of the duty espoused in Rest. 2^nd of Torts § 314A(2) against an apartment owner and property manager, based upon a discussion of the restatement in the unpublished case Tikhomirov v. Macy’s W. Stores, Inc., 7 Wn. App. 2d 1015 (2019).  Per the Court’s instruction, a landlord has a duty to give a tenant “first aid” and “care for the tenant until they can be cared for by others,” if the landlord “knows or has reason to know that the tenant is ill or injured,” even when the tenant is within his own private apartment.  Plaintiff had no recollection of the subject incident himself.  His case was built on second and third-hand knowledge, where witnesses testified to having heard some semblance of an admission from the former janitor.

Despite the troubling imposition of duty upon the owner and manager of a private, independent-living apartment building and questionable rulings allowing multi-layer hearsay to reach the jury, the defense team put on a strong case.  The defense urged the jury to require Plaintiff to prove a concrete factual narrative, with evidence, establishing the defendants had notice of an imminent need for medical attention.  Meanwhile Plaintiff relied on inferences drawn from vague hearsay statements in asking the jury for upwards of $6.3 million.  After a day and a half of deliberation, the jury returned a defense verdict.