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
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
Full Text
1,781 charspublic record is automatically admissible under [RCW 5.44.040].” State v. Monson, 113 Wn.2d 833, 839, 784 P.2d 485 (1989). To be admissible under RCW 5.44.040, “a report or document prepared by a public official must contain facts and not conclusions involving the exercise of judgment or discretion or the expression of opinion.” Brundridge, 164 Wn.2d at 451 (quoting Steel v. Johnson, 9 Wn.2d 347, 358, 115 P.2d 145 (1941)). The purpose of barring such conclusions is to avoid substituting a government agency’s conclusions for those of the jury. See Bierlein v. Byrne, 103 Wn. App. 865, 870, 14 P.3d 823 (2000). Applying these legal principles here, the L&I investigator’s statement that “No violations were cited” and “No penalties were assessed” is a judgment on whether SPD violated the law, which is akin to the jury’s role of determining whether SPD was negligent. While SPD argues this statement is not conclusory 33 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 85066-1-I because it “merely stated that the CO readings [in the West Garage] did not exceed L&I standards,” SPD conflates a fact (the readings did not exceed L&I standards) with a conclusion (no violations or penalties were issued). Even if the trial court erred in excluding this evidence, SPD was not prejudiced because, as stated above, it was able to argue that it complied with L&I regulations and was, thus, not negligent. 15 Therefore, the trial court did not err in excluding the L&I report’s conclusions. VII Finally, SPD challenges the trial court’s award of attorney fees and costs to Sgt. Hockett totaling $1,622,356.20 based on RCW 49.60.030(2) and SMC 4.20.870, which entitle a prevailing party to recover reasonable attorney fees for