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
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/850661.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,755 chars

court’s analysis complies with Burnet and is supported by the record, we find no

abuse of discretion.

SPD argues the trial court erred by reading an instruction (instruction no. 9)

to the jury regarding SPD’s standard of care on the negligence claim that stated

the following:

The Defendant the City of Seattle, acting through the Seattle
Police Department, is held to the general duty of care of a reasonable
person under the circumstances. This duty requires the Defendant
to maintain a safe work environment for its employees. This duty
extends beyond complying with laws and regulations. Compliance
[with] applicable statutes and regulations may be evidence that a
municipality met its duty of care. However, a municipality can violate
its duty of care even when it complies with statutes and regulations.
In determining whether the Defendant the City of Seattle met its duty
to maintain a safe working environment, you shall consider all of the
evidence in this case and the totality of the circumstances.

SPD claims this instruction misstates the law set forth in Fite v. Mudd, 19 Wn. App.

2d 917, 498 P.3d 538 (2021), by stating that SPD’s compliance with regulations

“may be,” rather than “is,” evidence SPD met its duty of care. We disagree.

We review de novo whether a jury instruction correctly states the law. Id.

at 930. But the “specific language of the instructions [is a] matter[] left to the trial

court’s discretion.” Douglas v. Freeman, 117 Wn.2d 242, 256-57, 814 P.2d 1160

(1991). “Jury instructions are sufficient when they allow counsel to argue their

theory of the case, are not misleading, and when read as a whole properly inform

the trier of fact of the applicable law.” Bodin v. City of Stanwood, 130 Wn.2d 726,