Skip to main content
Stephen Louis Bulzomi

Stephen Bulzomi’s Legal Cases

11 total


  • Adams v. King County,164 Wash.2d 640, 192 P.3d 891 (2008)

    Practice Area:
    Personal Injury
    Outcome:
    Reversal of summary judgment dismissal
    Description:
    County and Brain Bank required to face trial for wrongful harvesting of plaintiff's deceased son's brain. The case changed organ donation consent practices in Washington State.
  • Rucshner v. ADT, Sec. Systems, Inc., 149 Wash.App. 665, 204 P.3d 271 (2009)

    Practice Area:
    Personal Injury
    Outcome:
    Reversal of summary judgment dismissal
    Description:
    15 year old raped by door to door security system salesman. Salesman first came to house to present sales pitch, returned later to rape victim. Salesman had a criminal history involving door to door scams and theft. Employer never checked salesman's background. The Court held that the employer faced liability for negligent hiring and retention of employee.
  • Ottesen v. Food Services of America, Inc., 131 Wash.App. 310, 126 P.3d 832 (2006)

    Practice Area:
    Wrongful Death
    Outcome:
    Court affirmed denial of dismissal.
    Description:
    Decedent died when ran over by truck on employer's premises as he arrived to start shift. Defense claimed that wrongful death action against employer was barred by Industrial Insurance Act, and that only available remedy was worker's compensation. Trial court refused to dismiss case and court of appeals affirmed. The area where death occurred was used as parking area and work area, so "parking lot" exception to Industrial Insurance Act applied. Pliantiffs were able to claim full damages for wrongful death.
  • Castro v. Stanwood School Dist. No. 401, 151 Wash.2d 221, 86 P.3d 1166 (2004)

    Practice Area:
    Personal Injury
    Outcome:
    Denial of Summary Judgment Dismissal Affirmed
    Description:
    Castro sued two school districts for injuries sustained in high school soccer game. . He submitted the required statutory administrative claim form (RCW 4.96.020) before the statute of limitations expired, then sued after 60 days elapsed. The defense moved to dismiss, claiming that Castro sued too late, because the statute of limitations ran out during the 60 day waiting period before he filed suit. Castro contended that fling his claim "tolled," or temporararily stopped, the running of the statute of limitations for 60 days, and, therefore when he filed suit the statute of limitations had not expired. The trial court agreed with Castro and refused to dismiss the case. The Washington State Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that fling an administrative claim effectively added 60 days to the statute of limitations. Castro filed suit within three years and 60 days, so the statute of limitations had not expired.
  • Green v. A.P.C. (American Pharmaceutical Co.), 136 Wash.2d 87, 960 P.2d 912 (1998).

    Practice Area:
    Personal Injury
    Outcome:
    Reversal of Summary Judgment Dismissal
    Description:
    Plaintiff wife was exposed to DES (diethylstilbestrol) in utero, which caused physical abnormalitiesmaking it difficult to carry pregnancies as an adult. She sued maufacturers of the drug, who claimed that the staute of limitations had expired because she knew of DES exposure and resulting abnormalities years earlier. The trial court dismissed the case, but the court of appeals reversed. The defendants then sought review from the Washington State Supreme Court, which affirmed the court of appeals. The Supreme Court ruled that the jury had to decide if the plaintiff should have discovered that she had a cause of action years earlier when she learned of abnormalities caused by DES. The court also ruled that her husband could pursue damages for loss of consortium, even though he was not married to his wife when the DES exposure occurred.
  • Holmes v. Wallace, 84 Wn. App. 156, 926 P.2d 339 (1996).

    Practice Area:
    Personal Injury
    Outcome:
    Jury Verdict Affirmed
    Description:
    Client struck by truck as she crossed street while walking dog after dark. She claimed that driver who hit her was speeing, and that if he had driven at or below the speed limit she would have been able to cross safely before he arrived. The defendant claimed that the client could not establish that his speed caused the collison and that the case should be dismissed. Trial resulted in a verdict finding the defendant 55% at fault and he appealed. The court of appeals affirmed the verdict, holding that the physical evidence established a "point of notice" at which the defendant could have seen the plaintiff, and reacted and avoided her, if he had been traveling the speed limit.,
  • Baker v. Schatz, 80 Wn. App. 775, 912 P.2d 501 (1996)

    Practice Area:
    Personal Injury
    Outcome:
    Denial of summary judgment dismissal affirmed
    Description:
    Plaintiffs worked at plastics manufactruing plant where they were exposed to toxic fumes that injured them. They sued their employer pursuant to RCW 51.24.020, which allows suit where an employer deliberately injures workers. Otherwise, the workers could only collect limited worker compensation benefits. The trial court refused to dismiss the case, and the court of appeals affirmed. The court of appeals ruled that a jury could conclude that the employer acted with with willful disregard of actual knowledge that injury was certain to occur, which would establish that the employer acted deliberately.
  • Dickerson v. Chadwell, Inc., 62 Wn. App. 426, 814 P.2d 687 (1991)

    Practice Area:
    Personal Injury
    Outcome:
    New trial granted
    Description:
    The plaintiff was injured in a bar when assaulted by other drunken patrons. He sued the bar for overserving the assailants, and for failing to keep the bar safe. During trial, the court permitted defense counsel to question the pliantiff's girlfriend about a prior occasion when the plaintiff slapped her. The jury returned a defense verdict. The trial court granted a new trial, ruling that it committed error in admitting the evidence of the prior slapping incident. The defendant appealed and the court of appeals affirmed the trial court and remanded the case for a new trial.
  • Hibbs v. Abbott Laboratories, 62 Wn. App. 451, 814 P.2d 1186 (1991)

    Practice Area:
    Defective and Dangerous Products
    Outcome:
    Reversal of Summary Judgment Dismissal
    Description:
    Plaintiff was exposed to DES (diethystilbestrol) in utero. The DES exposure caused physical abnormalities which made pregnancy difficult. The plaintiffs sued the drug manufacturers, claming that they should have warned prescribing doctors of the possibility of side effects of DES. The plaintiff's mother's doctor testified that he thought that DES was helpful and safe. The defense claimed that this testimimony meant that any warnings would not have caused this doctor not to prescribe DES; therefore, failure to warn did not cause the plaintiff's injuries. The trial court dismissed the case. The court of appeals reversed. It held that the treating doctor was never asked if he would have prescribed DES if he had been informed of studies showing its ineffectiveness and danger. The court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for trial.
  • Weinert v. Bronco National Co., 58 Wn. App. 692, 795 P.2d 1167 (1990)

    Practice Area:
    Personal Injury
    Outcome:
    Reversal of Summary Judgment Dismissal
    Description:
    Plaintiff worked for a "second tier" siding subcontractor on a large construction project. He suffered injury when he fell from defective scaffodling. He sued the "first tier" siding subcontractor and the owner/developer of the project for failure to provide a safe workplace. The trial court dismissed his case, holding that the defendants had owed no duty to see that his employer followed safe work practices. The court of appeals reversed. It held that the owner/developer's general authority over the workplace gave it sufficient control to create a duty to require subcontractors to follow safety regulations and safe practices. It also held that the "first tier" siding subcontractor occupied a sufficiently similar position with respect to the plaintiff's employer to create the same duty. The court remanded the case for trial.