Bryan D. Scholnick is the Managing Partner in Tyson & Mendes’ Seattle office. Mr. Scholnick’s legal practice focuses on defending general liability cases with a focus on professional liability and automotive claims. He is an experienced litigator in cases involving automotive and trucking personal injury claims, automotive rental liability issues, engineering error and omissions claims, medical malpractice, products liability, workplace injuries, wrongful death, construction defect, and breach of contract. Mr. Scholnick has defended and represented architects, engineers, and physicians and hospitals in suits alleging professional negligence. Mr. Scholnick’s Masters in Mechanical Engineering and science background provides him with helpful knowledge in some of the more complex malpractice, professional liability, product design, and construction claims.
Mr. Scholnick has successfully resolved a variety of cases involving personal injury, alleged engineering design failures, complex construction defect claims, and product liability. He has successfully obtained multiple dismissal of a rental company following motions practice.
Mr. Scholnick studied law at Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and earned his J.D. in 2002. He then worked for seven years handling general liability and workplace injury claims in Chicago, Illinois, before moving to Seattle in 2009. While practicing law in Chicago, he obtained his Master in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Illinois in 2008. Mr. Scholnick is licensed to practice law in Washington, Oregon, Illinois, and Wisconsin.
Mr. Scholnick, his wife, and their daughter spend their weekends enjoying time together, watching movies, restoring their property, and playing with their dogs.
Recent Posts
The Washington Supreme Court considered the issue of whether a jury instruction given in an underlying lawsuit was prejudicial and not harmless to plaintiff. The Court found plaintiff was not prejudiced by the jury instruction even though the instruction was potentially misleading. The Appellate decision had found the jury instruction had been prejudicial to plaintiff. This affirmed a verdict of $9.2 million against Lake Hills Investments, Inc.
Division Three of the Washington Court of Appeals recently weighed the duty owed by a property owner to a scrap metal worker. Schuck v. Beck et al, 36754-1-III (April 21, 2020). The scrap metal worker alleged that the property owner owed a duty under common law negligence theories and strict liability for engaging in abnormally dangerous activities. The Appellate Court found that the property owner did not owe a duty to the worker.
SEATTLE (May 7, 2020) – Leading civil defense firm Tyson & Mendes LLP announced Bryan D. Scholnick as the new managing partner of its Seattle office, overseeing litigation throughout the states of Washington and Oregon.
Division One of the Washington Appellate Court recently found that a one-year suit limitation clause does not apply to extra-contractual claims. West Beach Condominium v. Commonwealth Ins. Co. of America, 2020 WL 133543, (Div. I, Jan. 13, 2020). West Beach Condominium were constructed in the late 1960s into early 1970s. Some 40-years later, West Beach hired a consultant to investigate potential water intrusion issues of the…
On November 21, 2019, the Washington State Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, reaffirmed that general contractors on construction job sites have a statutory and a common law duty to maintain a safe work site. Vargas v. Inland Washington, LLC, 96527-7, 11/21/19. Additionally, the Court stated that a general contractor may also face vicarious liability for the failures of others on the job site to provide a safe workplace under…
The Ninth Circuit certified the following question to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington: Is an insurance company is bound by its agent’s written representations that a particular corporation is an additional insured under a given policy? In a 7-2 decision, published on October 10, 2019, the Washington State Justices found that an insurance company is bound by the representation of its agent when the agent acted with apparent authority…
In late July, 2019, Division One of the Washington State Appellate Court addressed whether an insurer’s former coverage counsel could participate in a bad faith action against the insurer. In Richard Plein, Et Ano, v. USAA Casualty Ins Co., the Appellate Court examined whether the action the firm wanted to participate in would be substantially related to the firm’s former representation under RPC 1.9(a). RPC 1.9(a) states…
Good fences make good neighbors. This is not one of those stories. Division III of the Washington Court of Appeals found that a neighbor’s actions, which most would agree were childish and annoying, were sufficiently outrageous and extreme to rise to the level of an actionable tort. The Court upheld the trial court’s award of $40,000 for the tort of outrage.
This may not be first steps on the moon; however, on June 16, 2019, a heavy-duty commercial truck drove along Florida’s Turnpike with no driver inside. The truck successfully drove 9.4 miles navigating a rest area, merging onto the highway, changing lanes, and keeping a speed of 55 mph. The entire 9.4 mile journey can be watched on YouTube. The company behind this feat is Starsky Robotics. The semi-truck was initially driven remotely.
A few years ago, National Public Radio discussed the similarities between elevators and autonomous vehicles. (Remembering When Driverless Elevators Drew Skepticism, Morning Edition, NPR, July 31, 2015.) This discussion centered on how the automatic passenger elevator took over 50 years to become what it is today – not even a second thought about getting in and going. Originally, elevators required operators to guide…