She Fought When Prosecutors Wouldn't -- Rape Victim Vindicated In Lawsuit

When prosecutors told a Seattle woman they wouldn't charge the man she said raped her, they explained she wouldn't make a strong witness.

A serious head injury she'd received a year earlier could affect her ability to recall events and tell her story clearly, they told her two years ago.

Instead of giving up, she sued. Not just her alleged assailant, but the Seattle company that hired him to drive her and other disabled and elderly people around town.

Late last month, a King County jury vindicated her and the judge found the man liable. And in what lawyers say may be a first in Washington state, jurors also found the company, Seattle Personal Transit, liable for negligent hiring.

Jurors concluded if the company, which transports elderly and disabled people around Seattle, had checked the driver's background, they never would have hired him in the first place.

The company should have known that the driver, Clinton Jay Andrews, had violent tendencies and could have discovered he had a criminal history if they'd done more checking, jurors found. Additionally, they said, Seattle Personal Transit could or should have detected inconsistencies in Andrews' employment applications.

With liability established, a second trial on damages was to follow. Instead, the company and its insurer, Guaranty National Insurance Co., reached a settlement with the woman, agreeing to pay her $65,000.

Judge Robert Lasnik, who found Andrews liable after he failed to appear and defend himself, will set a judgment amount against him later. Jurors found him 85 percent responsible for the woman's damages.

Even though the settlement amount will barely cover her expenses, and she may never see a penny from Andrews, the woman is pleased by the verdict.

It stands, she says, for the proposition that disabled people have rights: "The point is the jury said, `You should have taken care of this woman better. You should have protected her better.' To me, that's the big deal."

John Rochford, the executive director of Seattle Personal Transit, said the company "deeply regrets any trauma" the victim suffered. The company has tried to correct problems that surfaced in the Andrews case, and now checks all references for new applicants, he said.

The whereabouts of Andrews are unknown. Twice last year he pleaded guilty in Seattle Municipal Court to criminal trespass for breaking into the Seafirst Bank Building at 1001 Fourth Ave. Officers described him as a transient.

Before he was hired in 1989, Andrews had been convicted in Seattle Municipal Court of menacing. A police report shows he threatened to kill two women with a .45-caliber automatic. One of the victims, Andrews' former girlfriend, told police Andrews had been using drugs and frequently lost his temper.

Jurors found that Seattle Personal Transit could have learned of the menacing conviction if they'd checked personal references Andrews had listed on his application.

A DEVASTATING DECISION

The 33-year-old woman, who asked that her name not be used, said she was devastated when prosecutors decided not to charge Andrews in June 1989.

Currently unemployed, she volunteers at a shelter for battered women as she continues recovering from her head injury.

Andrews, now 29, had driven her from her residence to the hospital before he showed up unannounced at her apartment on his lunch hour.

The phone rang as he arrived. When the woman went to answer it, he sat down on the couch. Andrews told police he started kissing her when she returned, and claims she kissed him back, leading to sex.

The woman denies she consented to sex. "When I hung up the phone, he attacked me," she said.

A Seattle detective who interviewed Andrews said Andrews admitted he had not been invited to the apartment that day and had never dated or been intimate with the woman before. He denied forcing her.

King County Deputy Prosecutor Barbara Linde, who was involved in the decision not to file charges against Andrews, said it's not that prosecutors didn't believe the woman.

But there's a big difference, she noted, in the standards of proof required in a criminal case and a civil case. In a criminal case, prosecutors must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, she said. In a civil case the burden is not as stiff; plaintiffs must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence, she added.

Linde couldn't remember what her reasons were for telling the woman prosecutors wouldn't file charges. But the victim and two other women who were present recall prosecutors mentioned the woman's handicap - brain damage suffered in a 1988 auto accident - could affect her value as a witness.

FIRM CONTRACTS WITH METRO

That injury caused the woman to rely on Seattle Personal Transit to get around town, to the hospital, to therapists.

Seattle Personal Transit is one of five private nonprofit agencies that subcontract with Metro to provide transportation for elderly and disabled riders..

Metro requires its subcontractors to check with the state Department of Licensing to make sure driver applicants have a clean record for the past three years, then get annual reports on drivers.

Since 1990, subcontractors like Seattle Personal Transit also are required to do criminal history background checks through the Washington State Patrol.

Seattle Personal Transit never requested a criminal-history check on Andrews. But even if it had, the State Patrol would have given him a clean bill, court papers in the case show. Law-enforcement agencies are not required to report misdemeanors like Andrews' menacing conviction.

Rochford admits that's a continuing gap for Seattle Personal Transit, as it is for all employers who rely only on State Patrol checks.

"Disabled people need to know they have rights," said the woman. "They can ask questions of these companies and their caretakers can ask questions."