 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Monohon v. Antilla10/25/2005
ntal agreement into evidence but excluding it from the jury's consideration. Although Antilla admitted at trial that she had a duty to keep the deck safe, the trial court's ruling was an abuse of discretion because the rental agreement would not have been cumulative because Antilla did not admit that her duty arose under, and was defined by, the contract.
We review the trial court's admission of evidence for abuse of discretion. State v. Pirtle, 127 Wn.2d 628, 648, 904 P.2d 245 (1995), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1026 (1996). ''A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly unreasonable or based upon untenable grounds.'' State v. Perrett, 86 Wn. App. 312, 319, 936 P.2d 426, review denied, 133 Wn.2d 1019 (1997) (quoting Havens v. C&D Plastics, Inc., 124 Wn.2d 158, 168, 876 P.2d 435 (1994)). We may affirm on any ground the record adequately supports. See State v. Costich, 152 Wn.2d 463, 477, 98 P.3d 795 (2004). The appellant bears the burden of proving abuse of discretion. State v. Hentz, 32 Wn. App. 186, 190, 647 P.2d 39 (1982), rev'd on other grounds, 99 Wn.2d 538 (1983). Abuse of discretion occurs only when no reasonable person would take the position the trial court adopted. State v. Russell, 125 Wn.2d 24, 78, 882 P.2d 747 (1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1129 (1995).
Evidence is relevant if it makes the existence of a material fact more or less likely. ER 401. Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. ER 403. The trial court has broad discretion in excluding cumulative evidence. State v. Weiss, 73 Wn.2d 372, 378, 438 P.2d 610 (1968); State v. Giedd, 43 Wn. App. 787, 790, 719 P.2d 946 (1986); see also Havens, 124 Wn.2d at 169-70.
Because we remand for a new trial, we address the contract's admissibility. The contract was highly relevant as it defines the scope of Antilla's duty. Excluding the rental agreement from the jury's consideration was error. ER 401.
Reversed and remanded for new trial.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.
Bridgewater, J.
We concur:
Hunt, J.
Quinn-Brintnall, C.J.
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.
|
|