FILED
2026 JAN 29 09:00 AM
KING COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT CLERK E-FILED
CASE #: 25-2-00226-8 SEA
Honorable Kent Liu Hearing Date: January 9, 2026 With Oral Argument
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING
AVIV LITOV, adult child, through his Power of Attorney TZACHI LITOV; LARA and TZACHI LITOV, his parents.
Plaintiffs, v.
CITY OF SEATTLE, a governmental entity, XU CHEN, an individual; Defendants.
NO. 25-2-00226-8 SEA
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING DEFENDANT CITY OF SEATTLE’S LIABILITY AND PLAINTIFF AVIV LITOV’S CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
THIS MATTER came before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment regarding the City of Seattle’s breach of its mandatory design standard, Seattle Streets Illustrated (“SIS”) § 3.8. The Court heard oral argument, read and considered the records and files herein, including:
1.Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Defendant City of Seattle’s Liability and Defendant Aviv Litov’s Contributory Negligence;
2.Declaration of Mo Hamoudi in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (with exhibits);
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING
3.Declaration of Thomas Alcorn, PE in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment;
4.Defendant City of Seattle’s Response Opposing Plaintiffs’ Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment;
5.Declaration of Janay Ferguson Opposing Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (with exhibits);
6.Declaration of Venu Nemani PE Opposing Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (with exhibits);
7.Defendant Chen’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment;
8.Plaintiffs’ Reply.
The Court issued an oral ruling on January 9, 2026 and the Court’s specific findings and conclusions, as stated on the record, are memorialized below:
1.SIS 3.8 is a mandatory standard that designers must adhere to as confirmed by the City’s own traffic engineer, Mr. Venu Nemani;
2.SIS 3.8 requires 125 feet of stopping sight distance wherever the roadway grade is 5% or greater, including driveways. The Court expressly confirmed that it relied on the “language of driveways and intersections” in § 3.8 and that the standard applies to driveways;
3.ThecollisionlocationonGreenLakeDriveNorthhasa5.1%downhillslope,triggering the 125‑foot stopping sight distance requirement;
4.The City performed no sight distance calculations before constructing the protected bike lane and parking configuration at issue. This lack of analysis was admitted in the City’s discovery responses and confirmed by Mr. Nemani’s testimony;
5.The City provided approximately 20 feet of parking setback from the driveway, which resulted in only 45–55 feet of actual stopping sight distance, per Plaintiffs’ expert Mr. Steve Harbinson.
6.Even using the City’s most favorable expert numbers (77–123 feet of visibility per Mr. Rose and Mr. Reed), the design still falls short of the 125‑foot mandatory requirement.
7.The Court observes that the City initially planned to prohibit parking near the driveway but abandoned that plan, and that there is no evidence the City conducted any SIS 3.8 analysis when it made that decision.
8.Under Owen v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 153 Wash.2d 780, 108 P.3d 1220 (2005), self-imposed regulatory standards define the duty of care. Because the City violated its own mandatory standard, the Court found a breach as a matter of law.
Now, therefore, it is hereby, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:
1.Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the issue of the City of Seattle’s breach of SIS § 3.8 is GRANTED.
2.The Court finds as a matter of law that:
a.SIS § 3.8 imposed a mandatory duty on the City;
b.The 125‑foot stopping‑sight‑distance requirement was triggered at this location based on the roadway’s 5.1% grade;
c.The City failed to perform any sight‑distance calculation as required;
d.The City’s design provided between 45 and 123 feet of sight distance—all below the required 125 feet;
e.The City therefore breached its mandatory duty under SIS § 3.8.
3.All other issues and claims raised by Plaintiff’s motion are denied.
4.This Order memorializes the Court’s oral ruling of January 9, 2026.
DONE IN OPEN COURT this 28th day of January, 2026.
Electronic signature attached
HONORABLE KENT LIU
King County Superior Court Judicial Electronic Signature Page
CaseNumber: 25-2-00226-8 SEA
CaseTitle: LITOV ET AL VS CITY OF SEATTLE ET ANO
DocumentTitle: Order
DateSigned: 01/29/2026
Judge: Kent Liu
Key/IDNumber: *335934135*
PageCount: Thisdocumentcontains 4 page(s)plusthissignaturepage.