Appeals panel hears dispute over whether recurring mid-block crossings create city duty in Shoreline wrongful-death case

An appellate panel heard oral arguments in Ecopian v. City of Shoreline on whether recurring mid-block pedestrian crossings near Richmond Beach Road gave rise to a legal duty that the city failed to protect, following a Sept. 2, 2020 fatality.

Counsel for the appellant, identifying their client as Diana Koppian (the decedent's niece), told the panel the block in question is about 1,325 feet long and abuts low-income housing where residents regularly cross mid-block. The appellant argued the city had notice of the crossings and prior collisions and therefore ‘tolerated’ pedestrian use at the location, turning otherwise unauthorized crossings into ordinary travel for which the city owed a duty to make the roadway safe.

Amanda Keane, counsel for the City of Shoreline, urged the court to apply the long-standing line of Washington cases that hinge on whether pedestrian travel was 'invited' by the government. Keane cited Bergland (1940) and McKee (1989) and said foreseeability alone does not expand a government’s tort duty. She noted the city had implemented a road diet that reduced lanes from four to three and added a bike lane, and said the choice to fund a full mid-block treatment (what counsel described as a rectangular rapid flashing beacon) was a policy and budgeting decision for the city council, not a basis for broad tort liability.

The panel pressed both sides on legal authority and on whether certain facts are undisputed. The judges observed that the pedestrian who was struck was outside a marked crosswalk — roughly two football fields from the nearest marked crossing — and questioned whether that fact, if undisputed, might limit the legal duty the city owed as a matter appropriate for summary disposition. Counsel for the appellant responded that repeated incidents, prior serious injuries at or near the location, community complaints and expert video evidence showing frequent crossings create a factual constellation that should go to a jury.

Keane told the panel she was aware of recent decisions that the city views as consistent with the 'invited' test, including a Division I opinion in Brandy v. City of Seattle and an unpublished Division III opinion, Stenzel v. Spokane, which the city read as relying on a misleading-condition or invited-use analysis.

Appellant counsel argued enforcement of jaywalking statutes and other responses were part of a pattern of inaction and said the city had 'tolerated' unsafe pedestrian conditions that included elderly residents and recent immigrants. Counsel asked the court to allow the factual record — including prior collisions and expert video excerpts submitted to the trial court — to be weighed by a jury rather than resolved on summary judgment.

After roughly ten minutes of argument by each side and brief questioning by the panel, the court took the case under advisement. No ruling was announced from the bench; the court moved to the next calendar matter.