Richard L. Moore, Jr., et ux v. Randall Poltz, et ux
34457-6
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jul 6, 2017Background
- Richard Moore, a skilled carpenter, agreed to caulk a 17-foot foyer ceiling at Randall Poltz’s house as a favor; Poltz supplied a borrowed 14-foot orchard ladder.
- The ladder had a damaged leg base; Poltz set the ladder on rugs without skid-resistant backing and placed the ladder’s pole on a smooth hard surface.
- Poltz tested the ladder by climbing halfway and bouncing several times; it did not move during his test.
- Moore began work later that evening without testing the ladder; while reaching, the ladder twisted and the pole slipped, causing Moore to jump and suffer severe ankle and foot injuries.
- Moores sued alleging Poltz was negligent in setting the ladder (Moore characterized himself as a business invitee); at trial Poltz admitted at deposition he had “miss-set” the ladder but testified he believed it was safe based on his prior test.
- The trial court denied directed verdict and later denied Moores’ JMOL; the jury found Poltz not negligent. Moores appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court should have taken negligence from the jury (directed verdict / JMOL) | Poltz admitted he miss-set the ladder, so negligence is established as a matter of law | Credible evidence showed Poltz tested the ladder and a reasonable trier of fact could find his conduct was reasonable | Court held issue properly submitted to jury; substantial evidence supported verdict for Poltz |
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing two proposed jury instructions (WPI 120.07 & WPI 120.06.02) | Trial court should have given the two WPI-based instructions submitted by Moores | Trial court discretion; Moores failed to preserve instruction error by not taking exception or explaining grounds below | Court held Moores failed to preserve the instructional-error claim and declined to review it |
Key Cases Cited
- Alejandre v. Bull, 159 Wn.2d 674 (review standard for JMOL)
- Sing v. John L. Scott, Inc., 134 Wn.2d 24 (standard for substantial evidence review)
- Cantu v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 168 Wn. App. 14 (definition of substantial evidence)
- Degel v. Majestic Mobile Manor, Inc., 129 Wn.2d 43 (elements of negligence)
- Gordon v. Deer Park Sch. Dist. No. 414, 71 Wn.2d 119 (negligence defined by reasonable care standard)
- Winsor v. Smart’s Auto Freight Co., 25 Wn.2d 383 (foresight, not hindsight, is negligence standard)
- Scanlan v. Smith, 66 Wn.2d 601 (jury may accept or reject testimony)
- Stewart v. State, 92 Wn.2d 285 (CR 51(f) objection requirement and purpose)
- Millies v. LandAmerica Transnation, 185 Wn.2d 302 (preservation of instruction issues; not hypertechnical but must apprise trial court)