 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bliss v. City of Newport6/14/1990
Elvira Bliss recovered a $48,000 judgment against the City of Newport for damages incurred from a sewage flood of her home. As a result of the City's posttrial motion, the court credited $17,325.72 against the judgment for cleanup costs paid by the City's insurance company prior to trial. Mrs. Bliss appeals the credit and the City cross-appeals the amount. We affirm the credit and its amount.
Mrs. Bliss sued the City for damages on theories of negligence, trespass and nuisance. Before trial, the City moved to exclude evidence on the damages previously paid by the City's insurer, or in the alternative, to allow an offset for the amounts paid. The trial court denied the motion, permitting the cost of repairs to be introduced in evidence, but not the facts regarding the payment of those costs or the compromised amounts. While recording its ruling, the court stated:
The Court: As to this matter of mitigation, I think it was determined that, first of all, as to the offset, that the offset will not be talked about at trial, but that the amount of the offset will be -- I don't know if the amount is in dispute; at least I don't understand that it is, but I guess if it was, then that would be a matter to be determined by the court, and then the offset would be deducted from any judgment. That's the understanding. Is that correct?
Mr. Miller: Yes, your Honor.
Mr. Eymann: It's my understanding with regard to the offset, No. 1, whether the offset is proper and as to the amount would be ruled later on by your Honor.
The Court: Okay.
Later, during that same hearing, the court stated:
The Court: All right, the only other note I had would be about the repairs and that the plaintiff would introduce evidence of the reasonable cost of the repairs, as opposed to the actual -- this other side deal, or whatever it was, as to the cost of repairs.
Mr. Miller: It was originally defendant's motion that the plaintiff not be allowed to introduce evidence of the costs of repairs. It's my understanding the court's determined that the testimony on the cost will be admissible, but that the issue regarding payment of those costs will not be admitted.
The Court: And the word "cost". I'm talking about they're entitled to say what the reasonable cost is as opposed to some negotiated, lower than reasonable figure which was referred to by you in chambers.
Mr. Eymann: Correct.
The jury returned a general verdict in Mrs. Bliss' favor.
Posttrial, the City, asserting the parties had stipulated to an offset, moved for a credit against the judgment for the full amount of the cleaning bills it had compromised and paid prior to trial. The court agreed to the extent of the compromised amount. Mrs. Bliss moved for reconsideration of the court's decision, denying she had stipulated to an offset, but had consented only to a court ruling postponing the question of offset until after trial and, if appropriate, its amount. After hearing evidence on the amount claimed by the City, the court reduced the judgment by $17,325.72, the compromised total of the bills paid by the City.
Mrs. Bliss argues the trial court erred when it concluded counsel had stipulated to an offset. Our review of the record discloses that the parties stipulated that the matter of the appropriateness of a credit, and if appropriate, the amount of credit, would be decided by the court posttrial and this is what occurred. No evidence was allowed during trial regarding payment by the insurer or of the compromised amounts paid. As noted in Lange v. Raef, 34 Wash. App. 701, 705 n.2, 6
Page 1 2 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|