. CITY USE ONLY m? Clty Of Seattle CLAIM NUMBER 7/6Lrp Note: See instructions on back. NAME MIDDLE LAST, OR BUSINESS NAME) 125le OF BIRTH HOME PHONE Christine Sanders as Personal Rep. of the Estate of Sher Kung CURRENT HOME ADDRESS STREET CITY STATE - ZIP) BUS. PHONE HOME ADDRESS AT THE TIME THE CLAIM AROSE c/o MacDonald Hoague Bayless 705 Second Ave. Ste. 1500, Seattle WA 98104 (206) 622?1604 CELL PHONE STREET CITY - STATE E-MAIL ADDRESS c/o davidw@mhb.com DATE TIME DIAGRAM August 29, 2014 Approx. 8:45am LO BE VERY SPECIFIC: STREETS, ADDRESSES, etc. Second Ave. and Univeristy St. 0 7?1? 7 DESCRIBE IN YOUR OWN WORDS HOW THIS LOSS OCCURRED AND WHY 3* YOU BELIEVE THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE. (additional space on reverse c: side or attach additional pages and supportive documents as needed) 71 :2 I See attached statement NAMES, ADDRESSES, AND PHONE NUMBERS OF ALL PERSONS INVOLVED IN OR WITNESS TO THIS INCIDENT CITY 25 i 1) See attached witness list 2) 3) CITY EMPLOYEE CITY VEHICLE NUMBER, LICENSE, etc. Ph: I Ph: Ph: Home, Auto, Personal Property} 3 YES IF SO, THEN FULLY DESCRIBE SUCH AS AGE, MAKE, MODEL, CONDITION, VALUE, OR EXTENT OF DAMAGE 0 [additional space on reverse side or attach additional pages and supportive documents as needed] 3 YES IF YES, THEN COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: 13 N0 (additional space on reverse side or attach additional pages and supportive documents as needed) DESCRIBE YOUR INJURY YOUR Fatal injury - $69 a?aChed statement WAGE LOSS a YES i: N0 IF YES, THEN RATE OF PAY: See ammad Sta?emem KIND OF WORK Attorney EMPLOYER Perkins Coie AMOUNT CLAIMED 18,000,000.00 SIGNATURE OF CLAIMANT TITLE, IF A BUSINESS) that the foregoing is true and correct This claim form must be signed by the Claimant, verifying the claim; or pursuant to a written power ofattorney, by the attorney in fact for the Claimant; or by an attorney admitted to practice in Washington State on the claimant?s behalf; or by a court-approved guardian or guardian ad litem on behalf ofthe claimant its?mu? Ema? I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington f" EXECUTED this ?Lz day of 44 (-1 County, Washington @Jbb? PRESENTATION OF A CLAIM This of?cial City of Seattle document must be signed, and the form with original signature (not a photocopy or scanned copy) must be mailed or delivered. Mail to: Deliver to: CITY OFFICE CITY HALL PO BOX 94728 600 Fourth Ave, 3rd ?oor Seattle, WA 98124-4728 Between James St Cherry St Business Hours: Monday-Friday, 8:00 pm. Closed on weekends and of?cial City of Seattle holidays An adjuster will be assigned to your claim after it is ?led with the City Clerk?s Of?ce. It is to your advantage to present with your claim relevant supporting documents (receipts, cancelled checks, estimates, billings, etc.) or additional evidence (photos, diagrams, etc.) Please note that the claim form and other supporting documents ?led with the City Clerk are considered public records under Revised Code of Washington Chapter 42.56, the Public Records Act. Public records are presumed subject to disclosure upon request. Additional claim forms can be downloaded from the Risk Management website: EXPLANATION OF THE CLAIMS PROCESS Shortly after your claim is ?led in the City Clerk?s Office, it is delivered to the Claims Section. The claim is then assigned to an adjuster who will contact you with your assigned claim number and their contact information and then they will conduct an investigation which includes a written response from the involved department(s). The Claims Section will then evaluate and recommend a reasonable resolution of your claim which will be one of three alternativesmoney. 2. Tender transfer to another party or entity responsible for your alleged damages. 3. Deny where there is no evidence of any negligence by the City of Seattle. If you have any questions about ?ling then do not hesitate to call 684-8213 during normal business hours Monday-Friday, 8:00 pm. If you have any questions after ?ling, call the Claims Adjuster assigned to your claim. CS 19.10 REV. 12:14 THIS SPACE PROVIDED FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NARRATIVE OF THE INCIDENT AND BASIS OF CLAIM At the time of her death on August 29, 2014, Sher Kung was a young lawyer at the prominent Seattle law firm Perkins Coie, widely-praised and universallydoved. Her colleagues expected great things of her. Sher had also recently become a mother, together with her fiancee Christine Sanders. Sher was an athlete, in great health, and beloved by her family and community. Christine Sanders, marker of Sher's child and her surviving committed iniimaie partner, was appointed Personal Representative ofthe Estate of Sher Kung by the King County Superior Court. No. 13-5-06882-7. Ms. Sanders Submits Il-lis Ion claim on behalfoflhe Estate of Sher Kung. The Falal Accident The day oithe fatal accident, at approximately 8:45 am. --was travelling southbound on Second Avenue in a delivery while employed by Rubenstein's Contract Carpet LLC ("Rubenstein's") At the same time, Sher Kung was on her way to work. lawfully riding her bicycle in what is meant to be a dedicated lane on the left (east) side of Second Avenue, at approximately the same speed as traffic, with a red helmet and cycling clothing that made her highly visible. As Mr. - approached the intersection with University Street, he slowed to turn lefl. When he did, Sher began to overtake him in the designated bicycle lane, on a green light. Under the law, Sher had the righI-uf-way and was entitled to proceed past the truck, whether or not the driver had activated his turn signal. Despite his obligation to yield, Mr, - slowed his truck and initiated a sudden turn across Sher's path as she was proceeding across University Street. As Mr. - continued his left turn, Sher cried out and instinctively reached her hand out in vain against the approaching truck, The truck continued turning across her path as she collided with it, just behind its from driver-side wheels, At impact, Sher was thrown off her bic cle. Her forward momentum threw her and her bicycle underneath the truck. As Mr. -y up the hill on University Street, apparently unaware that he had hit a bicyclist, the driver--side rear wheels ofth truck ran over Sher's torso and head, crushing her helmet and head, and killing her, continued east The City's Investigation into the Accident By August 29, 2014, the city of Seattle ('the City") had begun construction to alter the bicycle lane on the east side of Second Avenue as part ofils "Seccnd Avenue Bike Project." Aiter the accident, Det. Andrew Norton, the lead accident investigator from the Seattle Police Department (SPD), responded with other officers. net. Norton (and other officers) interviewed witnesses; collected and reviewed all known surveillance video from cameras along Second into i inclan Avenue and from other vantage points toward the accident scene; and inspected the City?s construction work at the Second and University intersection, among other investigatory activities. His ?ndings were made public in May 2015 (?Norton Report?). The Norton Report, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, makes several observations that demonstrate that the City?s roadway design for the Second-and-University construction site was defective in many respects. Det. Norton notes that the ?[r]oadway markings and signs . . . were a means of conveying intended lane use and the obligations as such.? Ex. 1 at 43. Det. Norton described these markings at the time of the accident as follows: A solid lane line separated the left lane (lane 1) from the dedicated bicycle lane in the block between Union Street and University Street. The line remained solid all the way to the stop bar at the north side of the intersection. White paint hash marks indicated the future buffer that was to be installed to the left of the solid line and the previously solid inside bicycle lane line had been abraded and converted into a temporary dashed paint line such that the bicycle lane was no longer framed off with solid borders. A sign mounted to a metal light pole located on the east side of 2nd Avenue approximately 100 feet north of University Street cautioned left-turning vehicles to yield to bicycles within the bicycle lane. Heavy foliage from surrounding trees along the east sidewalk appeared to obscure the sign until about mid?block, particularly when traveling in the left lane. Within the block in question, this sign was the only true indication of a dedicated bicycle lane as from all other visual indicators, there was no longer a bicycle lane. Ex. 1 at 44. Based on the noted condition of the signs and markings, Det. Norton concluded: ?The temporary roadway markings gave the appearance that the solid white paint line to the left of lane 1 was merely a lane edge rather than a delineator between lane 1 and a dedicated bicycle lane.? Id. at 44; see also Ex. 2 (Morris-Lent Report photos). Moreover, as Det. Norton?s description stresses, the only true indicator that a bicycle lane still existed during the construction transition was obscured by untrimrned foliage. In addition, the City continued to permit parking on the eastside of Second Avenue, ?up to within one car length of University Street where a fire hydrant is locatedconsequence of this con?guration, Det. Norton opined that ?from perspective he was already in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully available in preparation for the left turn.? 1d. at 35. Det. Norton noted that at the Second and University intersection, a ?white thermoplastic bicycle lane symbol and the former combination left turn/through lane symbol had either been abraded or allowed to degrade to the point that they were dif?cult to recognize.? Det. Norton found that drivers unfamiliar with the area at the time of this incident, the roadway markings did not readily identify a dedicated bicycle lane.? Ex. 1 at 45. He thus concluded the City?s failure to delineate clearly the location of the driver?s left lane relative to the bicycle lane contributed to the accident: 10891] ih261402 With the single white solid line continued all the way to the stop bar at the intersection with University Street, left-turning motorists seemed encouraged to stay in the left lane rather than moving over into the left (bicycle) lane, in violation of the rule requiring left turns to be made from the lane closest to the curb. Complicating this matter were the various roadway markings laid down in preparation for a lane design overhaul, as it did not seem clear that there actually was a dedicated bicycle lane. Ex. 1 at 46. Det. Norton?s ?ndings were consistent with ?Fatal Collision Location Signs and Markings Review? by Mike Morris-Lent, who determined: ?At the time of this collision in preparation for installation of the new facility - the curb?side (left hand) stripe of southbound bike lane had been ground off, and temporary, dashed striping put in its place. No permanent bike lane-related markings were observed through the University Street intersection.? Ex. 2 at 2 (emphasis added). Mr. Morris-Lent acknowledged that Second Avenue, even before its roadway signs and markings were altered by the Second Avenue Bike Project, was a ?high collision location? in 2009 and 2013, with a pattern of accidents related to ?left hook? collisions. See Ex. 2 at 3-4. The City?s Liability Claimant has retained a team of experts wo have conducted their own investigations into the accident and the City?s defective roadway design along Second Avenue, including the accident site at the Second and University intersection. For purposes of this tort claim, however, the Norton Report suf?ces to provide the factual bases for municipal liability. Claimant has also requested several categories of records under the Public Records Act (PRA) about the Second Avenue Bike Project and its discrete construction projects, including the one at Second and University. The City provided responsive records to some of these requests. Yet absent are City documents re?ecting that it complied with the standards for traf?c safety set forth in the Manual on Uniform Traf?c Control Devices (MUTCD) that the Washington State Department of TranSportation has adopted, including Part VI, pertaining to temporary traf?c control zones See Exhibit 3. Under these statutory standards, it is essential to develop Traf?c Control Plans (TCPs), even for temporary use, whenever the normal ?mction of a public roadway is suspended, including when projects such as the Second Avenue Bike Project are in the course of being constructed. MUTCD standards sterrnned from increased traf?c accident fatalities in the 19803 and 19903 that occurred in temporary traf?c control zones. By 2014 the standards were well?established and should have informed construction projects such as the one undertaken by the City at Second and University. Based on the evidence available to Claimant thus far, the City did not develop or implement a TTCP for the Second and University construction site. If the City had conducted 10897.1 ih26l402 the necessary traf?c studies and prepared an adequate TTCP prior to beginning its Second Avenue Bike Project construction work, City tranSportation engineers may have recognized, as Det. Norton did, that the design and proposed alterations would substantially increase the dangerousness of the intersection, especially for bicyclists southbound on Second Avenue. However, even without a TTCP, the City knew or should have known that the intersection was inherently dangerous, especially for bicyclists southbound on Second Avenue in the designated bike lane, before the construction project began and would become substantially more dangerous during the construction project. The City was already on notice that Second Avenue was particularly hazardous for bicyclists because, among other things, the Second and University intersection?and in particular that northeast section of roadway and designated bike lane?were the subject of numerous citizen complaints and had been designated a ?high collision location? by the City in 2009 and 2013. As the City acknowledged in its own post-collision review, the intersection had a history of an unusually high number of collisions, including the type of left?hook collision that killed Sher Kung. In light of this history, the City?s obligations to ensure adequate during the Second Avenue Bike Project should have been heightened. Sadly, the City did not recognize these duties as it undertook the construction project. Instead, during the construction phase when the potential for fatal accidents increases, the City altered existing roadway markings so as to increase confusion and left Second and University without adequate warnings to protect bicyclists. Based on the known acts and omissions, the City is liable for the death of Sher Kung on the following grounds: - Failing to conduct and document a reasonably adequate pro-project site inspection to evaluate traf?c conditions, existing traf?c controls, traf?c lane requirements, physical features, visibility restrictions and other conditions pertinent to development of a temporary traf?c control plan; - Failing to prepare a reasonably adequate temporary traf?c control plan; - Failing to provide reasonably adequate signs, roadway markings, channelizing devices, and other traf?c control methods and devices during temporary traf?c conditions; 0 Creating inherently dangerous conditions for bicyclists using the designated bike lane by removing or altering roadway markings that designated the boundaries of the bike lane, thereby making the designated bike lane less obvious; I Creating inherently dangerous conditions for bicyclists using the designated bike lane by installing hash marks across the designated bike lane, thereby confusing motorists by making the designated bike lane less obvious; 10891! ih26l402 Failing to maintain roadway markings that designated the bike lane and warned motorists of the existence of the designated bike lane; I Failing to remove roadway markings that were likely to confuse left?turning motorists and thereby encourage them to turn left from the left vehicle lane rather than occupy the bicycle lane prior to turning left; - Permitting parking on the left side of Second Avenue too close to the subject intersection, thereby confusing left?turning motorists and encouraging them to turn left from the left vehicle lane rather than occupy the bicycle lane prior to turning left; a Failing to post adequate warning signs and other safeguards to protect bicyclists from foreseeable left-hook collisions by vehicles turning left onto University Street; I Failing to remove foliage that partially obstructed approaching driver?s view of existing signs installed to protect bicyclists from foreseeable left-hook collisions by vehicles turning left onto University Street. Claimant anticipates that the City will assign fault to the driver of the Rubenstein?s truck and to Rubenstein?s itself as the driver?s employer. Yet the Norton Report, among other evidence and expert Opinion, establishes the City?s own signi?cant share of fault, which Claimant asks to be resolved through the tort claim process. Damages Sher Kung worked at a t0p tier national law firm, Perkins Coie, with decades remaining in her career?if she had not been killed by a direct and proximate cause of the City?s negligent acts and omissions described above. During her three years at Perkins, Sher worked in patent litigation and other commercial litigation that involved intellectual property, travelled to Taiwan to work on cases, and showed great promise as a lawyer. In an interim year at the ACLU of Washington as a fellowship lawyer (paid by Perkins), Sher worked in litigation, including on the landmark case brought by Major Margaret Witt, Witt v. Department of the Air area, that precipitated the end of the US. military?s ban on gay and lesbian service members. Interviews with colleagues indicate an expectation Sher would have advanced up the seniority ranks of Perkins lawyers, and that she was universally well liked and regarded in the workplace as well as in the community. With her undergraduate background in neuroscience from Brown University and pro?ciency in Mandarin, moreover, Sher would have been in a unique position to compete nationally and internationally for top jobs in patent and commercial litigation or other corporate law practices. 10897.] 511261402 Without Sher?s presence in the family life with her fiancee, Christine Sanders, their daughter, now one and a half years old, will require material support that not only encompasses conventional needs. Sher and Christine deliberately sought out a sperm donor for their child whose ethnicity resembled Sher?s, with the aim that their child would be reared as a Taiwanese- American with all the linguistic and cultural facility that entails. With Sher?s death, material support for their child will thus also need to be commensurate with recreating a Taiwanese cultural identity that Sher would have imparted naturally. Finally, in addition these special damages, Sher doubtless experienced pre-death terror as the Rubenstein?s truck suddenly cut her off. Eyewitnesses describe her crying out and extending an arm in vain before she collided with the truck?s front wheels, and then was swept under the rear wheels. And the injuries were horrific?the truck ?rst rolled over her torso, and then continued to drive over her, crushing the helmet and Sher?s head inside. Claimant asks for $18,000,000 as compensation for the grievous bodily injuries that caused Sher?s death, and for her pre-death terror, extreme physical pain and suffering, emotional distress, and dis?gurement; for the lost value of Sher?s expected lifetime earnings and other pecuniary losses; and for the love, consortium, support and services lost to her surviving dependent child; among other damages. 10897.] ih261402