Debra T. Talley v. Lanphere Enterprises Of Washington
76452-7
| Wash. Ct. App. | Nov 13, 2017Background
- On March 2, 2008, Talley and Lawson were passengers in a car driven by a Renton Honda employee and were injured in a crash.
- Plaintiffs sued Renton Honda for negligence; Renton Honda admitted negligence but contested proximate causation of the plaintiffs’ injuries.
- After a first trial ended in mistrial, a second trial in October 2016 produced a jury verdict finding Renton Honda negligent but that its negligence was not the proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries.
- Because the jury found no proximate cause, it did not reach or award damages per the jury instructions.
- Plaintiffs moved for a new trial under CR 59(a)(5), (7), and (9) alleging inadequate verdict, lack of evidentiary support, and that substantial justice was not done; the trial court denied the motion.
- Plaintiffs appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed and found the appeal frivolous, awarding fees and costs to Renton Honda under RAP 18.9(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion denying a new trial for inadequate damages under CR 59(a)(5) | Jury’s failure to award damages was effectively inadequate given defendant admitted liability and some injury | Jury was instructed not to award damages if no proximate cause; jury found no proximate cause, so damages issue was not reached | No abuse of discretion; CR 59(a)(5) motion properly denied |
| Whether the verdict lacked evidentiary support under CR 59(a)(7) | Evidence required damages; verdict inconsistent with record | Substantial evidence supported no proximate causation (medical testimony, video, plaintiff testimony) | No abuse of discretion; sufficient evidence supports verdict that negligence did not proximately cause injuries |
| Whether substantial justice failed under CR 59(a)(9) | Plaintiffs argued outcome denied substantial justice | Plaintiffs had full opportunity: many witnesses and exhibits; no persuasive showing of injustice beyond disappointment | No abuse of discretion; substantial justice was done |
| Whether the appeal was frivolous under RAP 18.9(a) | Appeal sought reversal of denial of new trial despite jury finding no proximate cause | Appeal lacked any debatable issues; no reasonable possibility of reversal | Appeal deemed frivolous; appellate fees and costs awarded to defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- Worden v. Smith, 178 Wn. App. 309 (2013) (standard of review for denial of CR 59 new-trial motion)
- Palmer v. Jensen, 132 Wn.2d 193 (1997) (review for sufficiency of evidence supporting jury verdict)
- Hojem v. Kelly, 93 Wn.2d 143 (1980) (viewing evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party for new-trial motions)
- Estate of Stalkup v. Vancouver Clinic, Inc., P.S., 145 Wn. App. 572 (2008) (negligence finding can coexist with finding that negligence was not proximate cause)
- Streater v. White, 26 Wn. App. 430 (1980) (definition and standard for a frivolous appeal)