K.h. & D.h. v. Olympia School District
48583-4
| Wash. Ct. App. | Aug 22, 2017Background
- DH, a special-needs student with Trisomy X, was molested three times in 2010 by Gary Shafer, a school-district bus driver who later pleaded guilty and was imprisoned. Plaintiffs are DH and her parents (Appellants).
- Appellants sued Olympia School District for negligence, alleging failures in hiring, retention, supervision, training, and ride-along procedures.
- At trial the jury found the District negligent and grossly negligent and that such negligence proximately caused injury, but awarded $0 damages to DH and each parent.
- Appellants moved for a new trial on damages (arguing an irreconcilable verdict), sought admission of the District’s prior admissions from a related case (Crunkleton) as party admissions, and sought fees under CR 37(c) for the District’s refusal to admit negligence in requests for admission.
- The trial court denied the new-trial motion, admitted the liability verdict but left the $0 damage awards intact, excluded the Crunkleton liability admissions, and denied the CR 37(c) fee request. Appellants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellants' Argument | District's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellants waived challenge to alleged internally inconsistent verdict | No waiver; waited until post-trial new-trial motion | Waiver because Appellants didn’t object while jury was impaneled and knew of possible inconsistency | No waiver — appellate review allowed (no absolute rule of waiver) |
| Whether verdict was irreconcilable (liability finding but $0 damages) | Verdict irreconcilable; must remand for new trial on damages | Verdict reconcilable: jury found liability but no legally compensable damages | Verdict reconcilable; denial of new trial affirmed |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support $0 damages | Evidence of damages was undisputed; $0 verdict unsupported | Expert and lay testimony supported conclusion that damages attributed to preexisting Trisomy X or were minimal; jury credibility call | Substantial evidence supports $0 verdict for DH and parents; no abuse of discretion denying new trial |
| Whether giving Instruction 19 (negative phrasing requiring segregation of damages caused solely by Shafer) was erroneous | Instruction misleading, redundant, biased against Appellants | Instruction appropriate, consistent with precedent (Rollins), and helpful to jury | No abuse of discretion in giving Instruction 19; preserved only confusion claim and court properly relied on Rollins |
| Whether exclusion of District’s admissions from Crunkleton was harmful error | Exclusion prevented streamlined liability case and prejudiced damages presentation | Any error was harmless because jury found liability; exclusion didn’t affect damages proof | Assuming error, it was harmless because liability was anyway found |
| Whether fees under CR 37(c) should be awarded for District’s refusal to admit negligence/breach | Requests for admission were proper and District should have admitted breach; fees warranted | Requests sought legal conclusions or central disputed issues; District had good reason to refuse | No abuse of discretion denying fees; party not required to admit legal conclusions or matters central to suit (Thompson) |
Key Cases Cited
- Tincani v. Inland Empire Zoological Soc’y, 124 Wn.2d 121 (1994) (irreconcilable special verdicts require remand for new trial)
- Rollins v. King County Metro Transit, 148 Wn. App. 370 (2009) (approved instruction segregating damages caused solely by third-party intentional actors)
- Thompson v. King Feed & Nutrition Servs., Inc., 153 Wn.2d 447 (2004) (requests for admission cannot force admission of legal conclusions like negligence/proximate cause)
- Kozma v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 412 N.J. Super. 319 (App. Div. 2010) (jury may find defendant negligent yet assess no compensable damages)
- Brundridge v. Fluor Fed. Servs., Inc., 164 Wn.2d 432 (2008) (standard for waiver review on mixed questions of fact and law)