 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Monohon v. Antilla10/25/2005
damages. Report of Proceedings (Jun. 24, 2004) (Colloquy Re: Instructions) at 2. According to that understanding, the court admitted a copy of the rental agreement into evidence but excluded it from jury consideration as irrelevant to the latent defect negligence theory.
Instead, the trial court gave the jury a general negligence instruction. It further instructed the jury over Monohon's objection that:
A landlord is liable to a social guest of a tenant for harm caused by:
(1) latent or hidden defects in the leasehold;
(2) of which the landlord had actual knowledge or should have been able to identify and which were unknown to the tenant;
(3) and of which the landlord failed to inform the tenant.
CP at 88.
The trial took place in June 2004, and the jury found Antilla not negligent. The jury also found Buchanan negligent but returned no verdict as to damages.
ANALYSIS
I. Instruction Based Upon Contract
We review jury instructions in their entirety, and they are sufficient if they (1) permit each party to argue his theory of the case; (2) are not misleading to the jury; and (3) when read as a whole, properly inform the trier of fact of the applicable law. Caldwell v. Wash. Dep't of Transp., 123 Wn. App. 693, 697, 96 P.3d 407 (2004). We review the jury instructions given at trial de novo and an error is reversible when it prejudices a party. Cox v. Spangler, 141 Wn.2d 431, 442, 5 P.3d 1265, 22 P.3d 791 (2000). An error is not prejudicial unless it presumptively affects the trial's outcome. Caldwell, 123 Wn. App. at 696-97. Even if misleading, an instruction is not grounds for reversal unless prejudice is shown. Keller v. City of Spokane, 146 Wn.2d 237, 249, 44 P.3d 845 (2002). We presume, however, that a clear misstatement of the law is prejudicial. Keller, 146 Wn.2d at 249-50.
Both parties are entitled to have the trial court give instructions on their theories of the case, provided there is substantial evidence to support them even if the parties have inconsistent legal theories. A.E. Egede-Nissen v. Crystal Mountain, Inc., 93 Wn.2d 127, 135, 606 P.2d 1214 (1980). So long as the instructions actually given are sufficient, it is not an error to refuse to give cumulative or detailed augmenting instructions. Bodin v. City of Stanwood, 130 Wn.2d 726, 732, 927 P.2d 240 (1996). The number and specific language of instructions are matters left to the trial court's discretion, which we review for abuse of discretion. Douglas v. Freeman, 117 Wn.2d 242, 256, 814 P.2d 1160 (1991), Herring v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. 81 Wn. App. 1, 22, 914 P.2d 67 (1996).
In Washington, a landlord who explicitly covenants to repair and maintain may be liable for negligent performance or nonperformance of that covenant. Mesher v. Osborne, 75 Wn. 439, 446, 134 P. 1092 (1913). Division Three of this court has also acknowledged a cause of action for damages for a breach of an implied warranty of habitability in residential leases. Lian v. Stalik, 106 Wn. App. 811, 822, 25 P.3d 467 (2001). Antilla expressly contracted in a rental agreement to '{m}aintain all structural components in good repair.' Ex. 54. Monohon argues that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury that Antilla had a duty to exercise ordinary care to maintain the outdoor deck structure in a reasonably safe condition. Monohon argues that this duty arose from the rental agreement or from an implied warranty of habitability. We do not address Monohon's claim under an implied warranty of habitability because we resolve the matter under the agreement. Because Washington recognizes a landlord's duty under an ex
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|