* BNSF Ry. Co. v. Clark

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION
(not the court’s final written decision)
The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the
written opinions that are originally filed by the court.
A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions
can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an
order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential
purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits
(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the
opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court
decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An
opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of
the court.
The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it
has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official
text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes
of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the
language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of
charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.
For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.

TITE
I DATE
IN CLERK* OFFICE
COURT,StKIE OF WASHmerON
DATE JAN 3 I 2019
(UA kMAA ir > &Q ,
GMIEFJUSTKe
This opinion was filed for record
at_ .VW.. on^AiA.3(, Biyi ^
SUSAN L. CARLSON
SUPREME QOURT CLERK
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY,
Respondent,
V.
THOMAS B. CLARK,MD,Pierce County
Chief Medical Examiner, and PIERCE
COUNTY MEDICAL EXAMINER,
Appellants.
No. 95015-6
EN BANC
Filed JAN 3 1 2019
FAIRHURST, C.J.—This case involves a practice that dates back to our
earliest days as a territory—^the coroner's inquest. Although we now typically use
experts to determine the cause of an unnatural death, historically we relied on the
verdict of a coroner's inquest jury. The parties before us ask how a coroner today
may invoke the statutory authority that accompanies an inquest.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

BNSFRy. Co. v. Clark, No. 95015-6
This case arose after Thomas B. Clark, MD, the Pierce County medical
examiner (ME),' attempted to subpoena a video held by BNSF Railway Company
of a fatal train-pedestrian collision. The parties dispute both whether Dr. Clark
properly began a coroner's inquest and the extent ofthe subpoena power granted by
the applicable statute. We are asked to determine whether Dr. Clark exceeded his
authority in issuing the subpoena. We hold that because Dr. Clark never began an
inquest, he did not have authority to issue the subpoena. We affirm the issuance of
a writ of prohibition by the trial court. We also provide guidance as to the scope of
the subpoena power, as this issue is likely to recur.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 5, 2017, a BNSF train was traveling through Puyallup,
Washington, during heavy snow. R.S.^ was standing on the tracks. According to
witnesses at the scene, the train blew its whistle, but R.S. was struck and killed.
Witnesses disagree about whether R.S. intentionally stayed on the tracks.
The train was equipped with a video camera that recorded the incident. The
video was secured by the BNSF evidence preservation team and remains in the
'In populous counties, the county legislative authority may decide to appoint a medical
examiner in lieu of electing a coroner. RCW 36.24.190. The medical examiner assumes the
statutory duties performed by the county coroner. Id. Pierce County has chosen to appoint Dr.
Clark as the medical examiner. See PIERCE COUNTY Code 2.06.010(A)(5),(F).
^ The name of the man who was killed is not material to the case. In the interests of
protecting the privacy of his family, we refer to him by his initials only.
2
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

BNSFRy. Co. v. Clark, No. 95015-6
possession of BNSF today. After the death, Puyallup Police Department officers
reviewed the video at the BNSF offices.
Dr. Clark then contacted BNSF to request a copy of the video to conduct a
death investigation. Dr. Clark believes that if he views the video, he must maintain
a copy ofthe video to comply with his obligations under the public record laws. MEs
are obligated to keep death investigation records confidential. RCW 68.50.105(1).
BNSF informed Dr. Clark that it will retain the video for 40 years but will not
release physical copies of the video because of concerns about the video being
leaked. Instead, BNSF offered to show the video to Dr. Clark at any time, as many
times as he would like to view it, and brought the video to the ME's office. No one
at the ME's office viewed the video.
On March 14, 2017, Dr. Clark sent a memorandum to the Pierce County
Superior Court administrator. The memorandum read as follows:
Pursuant to RCW 36.24.020, please be advised that I am opening an
inquest concerning the February 5, 2017 death of [R.S.] in Puyallup,
Washington.
Until further notice, however, Superior Court is not requested to
provide persons to serve as a jury of inquest, nor to schedule a
courtroom or related services, because my office is still gathering
evidence concerning this matter. You will be advised when the status
changes.
Clerk's Papers(CP) at 143. Dr. Clark has stated that it is now and always has been
his intention to hold an inquest in this matter.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

BNSFRy. Co. v. Clark, No. 95015-6
Dr. Clark then issued an inquest subpoena to BNSF, demanding the
production of "[a]ll photographs, film or video" depicting the "events 5 minutes
before, during and 5 minutes after" the collision. CP at 145. The subpoena bore cause
number 2017-0326 and ordered BNSF to produce the evidence to the ME on or
before March 31, 2017. BNSF was unable to find a case with this number on the
Pierce County Superior Court's website and refused to comply with the subpoena.
BNSF sought a writ of mandamus to command Dr. Clark to withdraw the
subpoena and a writ of prohibition to prevent him from enforcing the subpoena.
BNSF argued that the memorandum to the court administrator was insufficient to
convene an inquest and that, even if it was sufficient, the subpoena power granted
by the statute allows subpoenas only for testimony and not for documents. The
Pierce County Superior Court denied the writ of mandamus but entered a writ of
prohibition requiring Dr. Clark to withdraw or not enforce the subpoena. Dr. Clark
petitioned for direct review, which we granted.
II. ANALYSIS
Coroners' inquests are governed by chapter 36.24 RCW. RCW 36.24.020
states that if a coroner decides to conduct an inquest, he or she "shall notify the
superior court to provide persons to serve as a jury of inquest." We hold that this
statute requires a coroner to request a jury before an inquest can begin. We also hold
that a coroner has the power to issue a subpoena only once he or she has requested
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

BNSFRy. Co. v. Clark, Flo. 95015-6
a jury. Because Dr. Clark did not request a jury from superior court, he never
convened an inquest and did not have authority to issue a subpoena. The trial court
did not abuse its discretion by issuing a writ of prohibition, and we affirm.
Dr. Clark has made it clear that he intends to call an inquest jury and issue a
new subpoena in this matter ifthis court affirms. In the interests ofjudicial economy,
we explain that RCW 36.24.050 grants the power to subpoena this video but that the
subpoena is returnable only to the inquest jury, not the coroner's office.
A. Inquests and a coroner's subpoena power
1. Standard ofreview
Statutory interpretation "is a question of law reviewed de novo." State v.
James-Buhl, 190 Wn.2d 470, 474, 415 P.3d 234 (2018). "Statutory interpretation
begins with the statute's plain meaning." Id. "Plain meaning is 'discerned from the
ordinary meaning of the language at issue, the context of the statute in which that
provision is found, related provisions, and the statutory scheme as a whole.'" Id.
(quoting State v. Engel, 166 Wn.2d 572, 578, 210 P.3d 1007 (2009)). If the statute
is ambiguous, we apply "principles of statutory construction, legislative history, and
relevant case law to assist us in discerning legislative intent." Cockle v. Dep't of
Labor & Indus., 142 Wn.2d 801, 808, 16 P.3d 583 (2001).
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

BNSFRy. Co. v. CW,No.95015-6
2. Coroners must request ajury to begin an inquest
We first hold that a coroner's inquest begins under the statute when the
coroner requests a jury from superior court. Because Dr. Clark specifically told the
superior court not to provide a jury, he did not begin an inquest.
A coroner's inquest is a proceeding in which a jury, instead of the coroner,
determines the cause of death ofan individual."[T]he purpose ofa coroner's inquest
is to determine who died, what was the cause of death, and what were the
circumstances surrounding the death, including the identification of any actors who
may be criminally liable for the death." Carrickv. Locke, 125 Wn.2d 129, 133, 882
P.2d 173 (1994). If the coroner holds an inquest, then it is "the jury that decides the
matter," not the coroner. Thompson v. Wilson, 142 Wn. App. 803, 818, 175 P.3d
1149(2008).
Coroners' inquests are governed by chapter 36.24 RCW. Under RCW
36.24.020, a coroner may generally hold an inquest if a death appears to be
unnatural. The statute is clear as to how a coroner may invoke the inquest authority:
"[t]he coroner in the county where an inquest is to be convened pursuant to this
chapter shall notify the superior court to provide persons to serve as a jury ofinquest
to hear all the evidence concerning the death and to inquire into and render a true
verdict on the cause of death." RCW 36.24.020. This sentence discusses the county
"where an inquest is to be convened." Id. By using the future tense, the statute
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

BNSFRy. Co. v. CM,No. 95015-6
indicates that it is discussing what must occur before an inquest begins. The statute
explicitly states that the coroner "shall notify the superior court to provide persons
to serve as ajury ofinquestC Id. Therefore, the coroner must request a jury in order
to begin an inquest. See State v. Krall, 125 Wn.2d 146, 149, 881 P.2d 1040(1994)
(stating "the general rule that 'shall' is presumptively mandatory").
Even if the language were not clear, the legislative history suggests the same
result. Chapter 36.24 RCW "dates back virtually unchanged to the 1854 territorial
laws of Washington." Carrick, 125 Wn.2d at 137-38. When it was originally adopted
by the first legislative assembly of the Territory of Washington, it stated that when
the coroner learns of an unnatural death,"he shall go to the place where the body is,
and forthwith summon six good and lawful persons, qualified by law to serve as
Jurors, to appear before him forthwith, at the place where the body of the deceased
is, to inquire into the cause of the death." Laws OF 1854, § 3, at 436. In 1953, the
chapter was amended to make inquests permissive rather than mandatory. At that
time, this statute was changed to read, "The eoroner shall summon six good and
lawful persons to serve as jurors and to hear all the evidence concerning the death
and to inquire into and render a true verdict on the cause of death." Laws OF 1953,
ch. 188, § 3. In 1988, the legislature amended the statute again to create uniformity
in the way all kinds ofjurors are selected, summoned, and compensated. Laws of
1988, ch. 188, § 1. The legislature amended the statute by replacing the "summon
7
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

BNSFRy. Co. v. CM,No. 95015-6
six good and lawful persons" language with the current "notify the superior court to
provide persons to serve as a jury of inquest." Id. § 18. The original language was
clear that the coroner holding the inquest must summon the jury immediately. The
1953 amendment removed the word "forthwith" but maintained the mandatory
"shall summon" language for a coroner's inquest. These amendments make the
inquest process optional but do not authorize the coroner to start the inquest without
requesting or summoning a jury.
This reading also comports with the understanding in prior cases. For
example, m In re Inquest into Death ofBoston, 112 Wn. App. 114, 117,47 P.3d 956
(2002), the Court of Appeals summarized chapter 36.24 RCW as authorizing
inquests that allow "the county coroner to summon and empanel jurors, to subpoena
witnesses, and to issue arrest warrants." See also Lee v. Jasman, 183 Wn. App. 27,
57, 332 P.3d 1106 (2014)("When determining the cause of death, a coroner may
summon an inquest jury."), aff'd, 183 Wn.2d 633, 354 P.3d 846(2015); Thompson,
142 Wn. App. at 818("[T]he coroner may call an inquest and seat a jury and, in that
case, it is the jury that decides the matter."). None of these cases contemplated an
inquest beginning without a jury being summoned.
In this case. Dr. Clark wrote a memorandum to the Pierce County Superior
Court administrator stating that he was "opening an inquest," but that the "Superior
Court is not requested to provide persons to serve as a jury of inquest" at this time.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

BNSFRy. Co. v. Clark, No. 95015-6
CP at 143. Contrary to the statute, Dr. Clark did not "notify the superior court to
provide persons to serve as a jury of inquest." RCW 36.24.020. In fact, Dr. Clark
specifically told the superior court not to provide persons to serve as a jury of
inquest. Because Dr. Clark did not request a jury, an inquest never began.
3. A coroner's subpoena power is tied to inquests
A coroner does not have general subpoena power. The subpoena power arises
only once an inquest begins. Because Dr. Clark did not request a jury, he did not
commence an inquest and he did not have authority to issue the subpoena.
RCW 36.24.050 provides the coroner with limited power to issue subpoenas.
Under this section, "[t]he coroner must summon and examine as witnesses, on oath
administered by the coroner, every person, who, in his or her opinion or that of any
of the jury, has any knowledge of the facts." RCW 36.24.050. Under Washington
law,"[sjtatutes on the same subject matter must be read together to give each effect
and to harmonize each with the other." US W. Comma 'ns, Inc. v. Utils. & Transp.
Comm'n, 134 Wn.2d 74, 118, 949 P.2d 1337 (1997). Because RCW 36.24.050
appears alongside several other sections governing inquests and explicitly mentions
"the jury," the most natural reading is that the subpoena power is contingent on there
being an inquest.
This interpretation also comports with the general understanding that the
subpoena power does not arise until there is a matter pending before a tribunal. For
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

BNSFRy. Co. v. Clark, No. 95015-6
example,the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals held that despite the absence
of a limitation in the statute, a court has no power to issue a subpoena duces tecum
unless a case is pending before it. State v. McGill, 230 W. Va. 569, 573, 741 S.E.2d
127 (2013); see also Rogers v. Superior Court, 145 Cal. 88, 91, 78 P. 344 (1904)
("A witness can be compelled to answer only such questions as are legal and
pertinent to a matter in issue before a tribunal.'" (emphasis added)); Chambers v.
Oehler, 107 Iowa 155, 158, 77 N.W. 853 (1899) ("[T]he pendency of some
proceeding in court is necessary in order to warrant the issuance of process for
witnesses. There being no case pending in this instance, the justice had no authority
to issue a subpoena for a witness.").
However, once the coroner has properly begun the inquest process by
requesting jurors, he or she is authorized to issue subpoenas returnable to the inquest
jury. The coroner "conduct[s]" the inquest, RCW 36.24.020, and "examine[s]" the
witnesses, RCW 36.24.050. The coroner must be allowed to issue subpoenas before
the jury is actually empaneled to ensure that the coroner will have witnesses to
examine once the jury is empaneled to hear the evidence.
4. This video is subject to a properly issued inquest subpoena
The subpoena power granted by RCW 36.24.050 includes the power to
subpoena the video in this case.
10
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

BNSFRy. Co. v. Clark, No. 95015-6
Because the word "subpoena" might mean either subpoena ad testificandum
or subpoena duces tecum, or both, we look to the way "subpoena" was understood
when this statute was enacted. As mentioned above, "RCW 36.24 dates back
virtually unchanged to the 1854 territorial laws ofWashington." Carrick, 125 Wn.2d
at 137-38.^ In the same legislative session that adopted this statute, the legislature
passed a law discussing subpoenas in civil practice. This statute explains that a
"subpoena may require not only the personal attendance of the person to whom it is
directed, at a particular time and place to testify as a witness, but may also require
him to bring with him any books, documents, or things under this control." Laws of
1854, ch. 32, § 296. In 1854, therefore, a "subpoena" included both the power to
bring a witness in to testify and the power to require that witness to bring physical
items with him or her.
^ Indeed, the original version ofthe statute as adopted by the first legislative session in the
Territory of Washington read as follows:
The coroner may issue subpoenas for witnesses, to the sheriff or any constable of
the county,returnable forthwith, or at such time and place as he may appoint, which
may be served by any competent person.—He must summon, and examine as
witnesses, on oath, by him administered, every person, who,in his opinion, or that
of any of the jury, has any knowledge of the facts, and he may summon a surgeon
or physician to inspect the body, and give, under oath, a professional opinion as to
the cause of death.
Laws of 1854, § 6, at 436. The only changes between then and now are removing the language
requiring the subpoenas to go to the sheriff or constable and making the language gender neutral.
The next section included the language now at the end ofRCW 36.24.050,"A witness served with
a subpoena maybe compelled to attend and testify, or be punished by the coroner for disobedience,
in like manner as upon a subpoena issued by a justice of the peace." Id. § 7, at 437. The only
amendment in this section was changing "justice ofthe peace" to "district judge."
11
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

BNSFRy. Co. v. Clark, No. 95015-6
Notably, another section of the original laws of this state did reference both
"subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum, as in ordinary cases at law," Laws OF 1854,
ch. 1, § 40 (emphasis omitted)(regarding elections). However, later, in chapter 32,
§ 296,the legislature explained that in ordinary cases at law, a "subpoena" alone can
require a witness to testify and to bring documents. The legislature did not suggest
that the word "subpoena" in the coroner's inquest statute had a narrower meaning
than the definition adopted elsewhere in the same legislative session.
The way the 1854 legislature defined "subpoena" is in line with the definition
of "subpoena" at the time. A legal dictionary from the mid-1800s defined a
"subpoena" as a "writ by which persons are commanded to appear at a certain place,
at a certain time, under a penalty." Henry James Holthouse, A New Law
Dictionary, Containing Explanations of Such Technical Terms and
Phrases as Occur in the Works of Legal Authors, in the Practice of the
Courts,and in the Parliamentary Proceedings of the Houses of Lords and
Commons 390(2d ed. 1846)(emphasis omitted). The dictionary explains that there
are several different kinds of subpoenas, including subpoenas ad testificandum and
subpoenas duces tecum. Id. Both kinds of subpoenas involve compelling witnesses
to attend in court. The subpoena duces tecum additionally requires the witnesses "to
bring with them books or documents which may be in their possession, and which
may tend to elucidate the subject-matter of the trial." Id. (emphasis omitted).
12
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

BNSFRy. Co. v. Clark, No. 95015-6
Because both forms of subpoenas can thus be fairly described as "subpoenas for
witnesses," the phrasing of RCW 36.24.050 does not limit subpoenas to only
subpoenas ad testificandum.
This is also a more logical reading of the statute. If the coroner lacked the
power to require witnesses to bring physical evidence with them, then the inquest
jury would not be able to see and evaluate one ofthe most crucial pieces of evidence
in this case, an actual video of the death. The jury would have to make a
determination based only on what other people told them that the video showed.
Given the statute's requirement that the jury "hear all the evidence concerning the
death," RCW 36.24.020, allowing the coroner to subpoena the video in this case
would further legislative intent."^ Timberline Air Serv., Inc. v. Bell Helicopter-
Textron, Inc., 125 Wn.2d 305, 312, 884 P.2d 920(1994)("The purpose of statutory
construction is to effectuate legislative intent.").
This court has also previously assumed that subpoena power includes the
power to demand physical items. In State ex rel. Sowers v. Olwell, 64 Wn.2d 828,
829, 394 P.2d 681 (1964), an attorney was served with a subpoena duces tecum.
In this case, the coroner issued a subpoena to a business for a video that he knows exists
and contains evidence concerning the death. Cf. State v. Miles, 160 Wn.2d 236, 244, 156 P.3d 864
(2007) (explaining that article I, seetion 7 of the Washington Constitution bars administrative
subpoenas that go beyond business records to intrude on private affairs and are issued without
judicial oversight). This is not a fishing expedition. Cf. State v. Reeder, 184 Wn.2d 805, 820-21,
365 P.3d 1243 (2015)("Grand juries are not entitled 'to engage in arbitrary fishing expeditions.'"
(quoting United States v. R. Enters., Inc., 498 U.S. 292, 299, 111 S. Ct. 722, 112 L. Ed. 2d 795
(1991))).
13
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

BNSFRy. Co. v. Clark,l<lo. 95015-6
ordering him to bring a knife that his client had given to him to a coroner's inquest.
This court held that the subpoena was defective in that case because it violated
attorney-client privilege, but there was no mention ofthe coroner s inquest subpoena
power being limited to only subpoenas ad testificandum. See also In re Investigation
ofDeath ofFrancis,No. 8556,1977 WL 199094, at *1 (Ohio Ct. App.Dec. 7, 1977)
(unpublished)(reviewing a coroner's subpoena duces tecum without any mention of
a lack of power to issue it despite Ohio Revised Code Annotated § 313.17 granting
authority to "issue subpoenas for such witnesses as are necessary").
Finally, our decision today aligns with the only other court that appears to
have confronted this issue. In New York, the statute governing coroners' inquests
grants coroners the "power to subpoena and examine witnesses under oath." N.Y.
County Law § 674(4). Interpreting that statute, a New York court found that such
a subpoena "is not restricted to merely asking questions of witnesses." Brunner v.
Registrar of Med. Records ofDe Graff Mem 7 Hosp., 119 Misc. 2d 952, 953, 464
N.Y.S.2d 928 (Sup. Ct. 1983). Instead, "the reference generally, to the power to
subpoena in [the statute], includes the power ofsubpoena duces tecum."Id.; see also
18 C.J.S. Coroners and Medical Examiners § 17 (2007)("The coroner's statutory
subpoena power is not restricted to the examination of witnesses but includes the
power of subpoena duces tecum."(citing Brunner, 119 Misc. 2d at 953)).
14
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

BNSFRy. Co. v. CM,No. 95015-6
5. Covoners may demand only that the subpoena be returned to the inquestjury
Although the coroner may subpoena the video in this case, he or she may
demand only that the witness bring the evidence to the inquest jury. The coroner is
not entitled to summon the witness or the evidence to his or her office.
The statute allows the coroner to "issue subpoenas for witnesses returnable
forthwith or at such time and place as the coroner may appoint." RCW 36.24.050.
This language is unchanged from the original 1854 law. Under the original law,
whenever a suspicious death occurred, the coroner was to "go to the place where the
body is, and forthwith summon six good and lawful persons, qualified by law to
serve as jurors, to appear before him forthwith, at the place where the body of the
deceased is, to inquire into the cause of the death." LAWS OF 1854, § 3, at 436. The
statute at that time clearly did not contemplate the coroner reviewing the evidence
prior to summoning the jury. The legislature intended to allow subpoenas requiring
the witness or evidence to appear before the jury immediately or to appear before
the jury at a later place and time. This section does not allow a coroner to demand to
see the subpoenaed evidence prior to the inquest.
This reading of the statute aligns it with how some other subpoenas operate.
See United States v. Wadlington, 233 F.3d 1067, 1075 (8th Cir. 2000)(explaining
that a subpoena that required a witness to come to the prosecutor's office the day
before the grand jury proceeding indicated "improper use of grand jury subpoenas"
15
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

BNSFRy. Co. v. Clark, No. 95015-6
because the language allowing a subpoena to command a witness to '"attend and
give testimony at the time and place specified therein'" applied only to "formal
proceedings" and "does not authorize the Government to use grand jury subpoenas
to compel prospective grand jury witnesses to attend private interviews with
government agents"); United States v. LaFuente, 991 F.2d 1406, 1411 (8th Cir.
1993)("The government may not use trial subpoenas to compel prospective trial
witnesses to attend pretrial interviews with government attorneys."); United States
V. Keen,509 F.2d 1273, 1275,1274(6th Cir. 1975)(a subpoena may "be issued only
for the purpose of compelling the attendance of witnesses or the production of
evidence at a formal proceeding," and it was "highly improper" to use a subpoena
to attend a pretrial interview with the government).
Moreover, ROW 36.24.020 does not allow preinquest inspection of the
evidence, and for good reason. The inquest jury must "hear all the evidence
concerning the death." RCW 36.24.020. "The coroner must summon and examine
as witnesses . . . every person, who, in his or her opinion or that of any of the jury,
has any knowledge of the facts." RCW 36.24.050 (emphasis added). This strong
language shows that the coroner who convenes an inquest has no need to see the
evidence in advance because he or she does not have the discretion to view a piece
of evidence or hear a particular witness statement and decide not to present it to the
jury.
16
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

BNSFRy. Co. v. Clark, l<\o. 95015-6
B. Writ of prohibition
1. Standard ofreview
A writ of prohibition "arrests the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation,
board or person, when such proceedings are without or in excess ofthe jurisdiction
ofsuch tribunal, corporation, board or person." RCW 7.16.290. A writ ofprohibition
may be issued only when (1) a government body is about to act in excess of its
jurisdiction and(2)the opposing party does not have a'"plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the course of legal procedure. The absence of either one precludes the
issuance of the writ.'" Skagit County Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 304 v. Skagit County
Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 111 Wn.2d 718, 722-23, 305 P.3d 1079 (2013)(quoting
Kreidler v. Eikenberry, 111 Wn.2d 828, 838, 766 P.2d 438 (1989)).
The trial court's grant of a writ of prohibition is reviewed for abuse of
discretion. Id. at 730."A trial court abuses its discretion if a decision is manifestly
unreasonable or based on untenable grounds or untenable reasons. 'A court's
decision is manifestly unreasonable if it is outside the range of acceptable choices,
given the facts and the applicable legal standard.'" Id. (citation omitted)(quoting In
re Marriage ofLittlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39, 47, 940 P.2d 1362(1997)).
2. The writ was correctly issued because Dr. Clark was exceeding his
authority and BNSF did not have an alternative remedy at law
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the writ in this case. Dr.
Clark had not yet begun an inquest and did not have the power to issue a subpoena.
17
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

BNSFRy. Co. v. Clark, Flo. 95015-6
Because he nevertheless issued a subpoena, he was acting in excess of his
jurisdiction, satisfying the first prong of the test. Because decisions surrounding
coroners' inquests may not be directly appealed or set aside by the court, BNSF did
not have an adequate remedy in the course of legal procedure, satisfying the second
prong. See Boston, 112 Wn. App. at 119 ("Although some jurisdictions have
recognized a limited right to petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition against
the coroner where the coroner has acted arbitrarily, direct appeal is uniformly
disallowed."). The trial court's decision was well within its discretion.
III. CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court's order issuing a writ of prohibition requiring Dr.
Clark to withdraw or not enforce the subpoena. The power to issue a coroner's
inquest subpoena arises only when the coroner has actually asked the superior court
to provide a jury. We also address the scope of the subpoena power, as a dispute
over its extent is likely to arise as a result ofthis decision. RCW 36.24.050 authorizes
a subpoena for the video in this case, returnable to the inquest jury.
18
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

BNSFRy. Co. v. Clark, No. 95015-6
^GU a t C-
WE CONCUR:
k
/
19
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.