Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 56466-1-II Published Opinion.pdf

The investigator interviewed Paddock. In her report, the investigator wrote that when she

spoke with him, Paddock described the straddle carrier accident differently than he had in his

deposition testimony. She wrote that Paddock “acknowledged he had previously testified that the

tagging incident occurred the day before the accident,” but “now . . . realized that his dates were

off, because he had learned Mr. Hughes wasn’t at work on the day before the accident.” CP at 371.

She added that later in the interview, Paddock “said the tagging incident was ‘shortly’ before the

accident, the way he remembered it,” but when she asked him “to estimate how close in time the

two events were . . . he said he could not do so, or even say whether they were a few days, a few

weeks, or a few months apart.” Id. She wrote that Paddock “said he had no concerns about” the

straddle carrier that flipped over “on the day of the accident.” Id. And she wrote that when she

asked Paddock “whether he had a reason to think the brake problem for which he tagged” the

straddle carrier “had anything to do with the accident,” Paddock said that “he didn’t know” and

that “there were many possibilities of what caused it.” CP at 372.

The investigator interviewed other Port employees. Her report stated that when she spoke

with Hughes, Hughes said Paddock only brought up tagging the straddle carrier “years after the

accident, around the time of the [longshoreman’s] lawsuit.” CP at 375. Additionally, other

unidentified witnesses did “not recall any time that . . . Paddock tagged a [straddle carrier] but the

[straddle carrier] was then put into service the next day without having been repaired.” CP at 376.