 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Monohon v. Antilla10/25/2005
al components in good repair.' CP at 263.
B. Prejudice
Antilla argues that the trial court's failure to give an instruction based on a landlord's duty arising out of a rental agreement was not prejudicial and therefore not a reversible error. Specifically, she argues the general negligence instruction sufficed to allow Monohon to argue his legal theory to the jury. But as the trial court gave the general negligence instruction combined with an instruction describing the landlord's specific duty to warn of latent defects, the instructions as a whole were misleading and prejudicial to Monohon because they implied that Antilla only had to warn of defects, not repair them.
Here, the court's general negligence instruction, 'failure to do some act that a reasonably careful person would have done under the same or similar circumstances,' was sufficiently broad to allow Monohon to argue that Antilla failed to exercise ordinary care in maintaining the deck. CP at 82. But this instruction was combined with an instruction that specified:
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. Taken together, the two instructions imply that the landlord only owes a duty to identify and warn the tenant of defects unknown to the tenant.
The general negligence instruction, combined with the latent defect instruction, was misleading and incomplete in light of the duty under the rental agreement. The jury may well have concluded that Antilla performed her duty to warn without considering whether she fulfilled her duty to maintain the deck's structure. Alternatively, the jury may have concluded that Buchanan, the tenant, was aware of the rot in the deck necessitating a defense verdict under a latent defect instruction that required the tenant to be unaware of the offending defect. The jury's finding that Buchanan was negligent supports this interpretation. The trial court later recognized the prejudicial effect of omitting an instruction on the contractual duty to maintain the deck, indicating that had the jury known of the additional duty under the rental agreement, it 'might well have viewed Ms. Antilla's actions or lack thereof differently.' CP at 307.
Instructions must not, taken as a whole, mislead the jury. Caldwell, 123 Wn. App. at 697. The latent defect instruction was misleading as to the duty Antilla owed.
As well, 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. A.E. Egede-Nissen, 93 Wn.2d at 135. Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-minded rational person of the truth of the declared premise. Bering v. Share, 106 Wn.2d 212, 220, 721 P.2d 918 (1986), cert. dismissed, 479 U.S. 1050 (1987). The proposed instruction properly set forth the law; and there was substantial evidence supporting the instruction. Substantial evidence supported an instruction based on the contract duty to maintain the deck in a reasonably safe condition. The court admitted a copy of the rental agreement establishing its terms. And Antilla admitted that she had a duty to keep the deck safe in her testimony at trial.
The refusal to give Monohon's proposed instruction prejudiced Monohon and was therefore reversible error.
II.
Monohon argues that the trial court erred in admitting the re
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.
|
|