Skip to main content

Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf

Citation
Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,759 chars
Rights Commission v. Cheney School District No. 30, 97 Wn.2d 118, 641 P.2d 163 (1982), this
case further bolsters our conclusion. In Cheney, our Supreme Court held that an administrative
tribunal had no authority to award damages for mental suffering or humiliation to employees who
experienced discrimination because the governing statute, RCW 49.60.250, did not expressly or

19
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85066-1-I

In short, if the City of Seattle intended that the damages cap under SMC

4.20.870(B) encompass all types of non-economic damages, rather than just

“emotional distress damages,” it should have drafted its ordinance accordingly. See

State v. Nelson, 195 Wn. App. 261, 266, 381 P.3d 84 (2016) (“We recognize that

the legislature intends to use the words it uses and intends not to use the words it

does not use.”). Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying

SPD’s motion to amend the judgment under CR 59(h).

IV

SPD argues the trial court committed three errors relating to the exclusion

of evidence that Sgt. Hockett’s symptoms were caused by his exposure to toxic

substances during his military service before he was employed by SPD. We

disagree.

We review a trial court’s interpretation of evidentiary rules de novo. Matter

of Welfare of M.R., 200 Wn.2d 363, 376, 518 P.3d 214 (2022). Where the trial

court correctly interprets an evidentiary rule, we review its decisions under that rule

for an abuse of discretion. Id. If a trial court abuses its discretion, we review for

prejudice and only reverse if “within reasonable probabilities, the outcome of the

trial would have been materially affected had the error not occurred.” Id. (quoting