Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 341038_pub.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/341038_pub.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,748 chars

that student safety constitutes a public policy. The univer~ity acknowledged that, if David

Martin pursued student safety, he advanced a public policy. Wash. Court of Appeals oral

argument, Martin v. Gonzaga University, No. 34103-8-111 (May 4, 2017), at 15:45 to

16:30 (on file with court). Therefore, Gonzaga University's contention that Martin fails

to satisfy the first element is more that David Martin never advocated student safety,

rather than student safety being unrelated to Washington public policy.

We discern issues of fact as to whether David Martin advocated student safety. He

presented testimony that he spoke to Jose Hernandez, if not others, about the need to

procure padding for the basketball court walls. Jose Hernandez characterized Martin as

28
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 34103-8-111
Martin v. Gonzaga University

passionate about the necessity of pads. The Gonzaga Bulletin interviewed Martin on this

topic because of numerous, including serious, injuries to students.

Gonzaga University also argues that David Martin advocated his own selfish

interests, rather than the public interest. Washington law distinguishes between employee

conduct motivated by purely private interests and conduct motivated by a concern for the

welfare of the general public. Dicomes v. State, 113 Wn.2d at 620 (1989); Thompson v.

St. Regis Paper Co., 102 Wn.2d 219,232,685 P.2d 1081 (1984). We agree that

undisputed facts establish that Martin, in part, sought to forward his own interests. At

times, Martin focused on his pool proposal more than student safety and wanted full

credit for the proposal. Nevertheless, the law does not preclude recovery under the tort of