Four week trial slated for Warner suit

A four-week trial is scheduled to start here Jan. 31, 2018 for the civil suit filed by David Warner, a former WSU faculty member, against the proprietors of Stubblefield’s Bar in the Adams Mall at Pullman. The suit was moved to Whitman County Superior Court here after initially being filed in Thurston County.

The suit goes back to the early hours of March 30, 2013, when Warner was injured in a fight which started at Adams Mall outside of Stubblefield’s. Warner’s suit alleges that failure of the proprietors to provide security outside the college hill bar led to the chain of events which resulted in his injuries. He sustained serious head injuries and was taken to Providence Sacred Heart Medical Center in Spokane for treatment.

Warner’s suit contends he was actually attempting to stop the dispute when he was knocked down and hit his head.

Adams County Judge John Strohmeier in a memorandum opinion April 17 dismissed Washington State University as one of the defendants in the case. The judge ruled WSU, which had leased out the mall property, did not have actual possession of Stubblefield’s at the time Warner was injured.

Remaining defendants in the suit are Blind Squirrel LCC, proprietors of Stubblefield’s, and Corporate Pointe, Inc., the company that leased the property from WSU.

Judge Strohmeier ruled other issues brought out in the suit, including arguments on security standards and obligations of the proprietors, will need to undergo determination at trial.

Motions and counter motions were filed in the wake of Judge Strohmeier’s April ruling. One motion remained on the docket Friday, and Judge Strohmeier denied it in a court session here.

Warner’s attorney, Walter Gilbert of Spokane, in August of 2014, 15 months after the alleged assault, filed an administrative claim with WSU for $15 million in damages. It was rejected by the university, and filing of the civil suit followed in Thurston County.

Pullman Police in the weeks after the assault arrested four suspects on probable assault charges. The prosecutor’s office in January of 2014 announced charges would not be filed against the suspects. The statement noted the problem with pursuing criminal charges was the state’s inability to reconcile evidence recorded by video surveillance cameras with witness accounts of the assault. Gilbert at one point in subsequent filings listed 77 potential witnesses for the upcoming trial on the civil suit.