Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877933 Order and Opinion.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877933 Order and Opinion.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/877933%20Order%20and%20Opinion.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,775 chars

of these respects and that substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict. We

address each argument in turn.

1. Substantial Evidence

We first address the appropriate standard of review. The hospital argues

that this court should review de novo the denial of its motions for summary

judgment and judgment as a matter of law. We disagree and review the verdict

for substantial evidence.

“‘A summary judgment denial cannot be appealed following a trial if the

denial was based upon a determination that material facts are disputed and must

be resolved by the factfinder.’” Kaplan v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 115 Wn. App.

791, 799, 65 P.3d 16 (2003) (quoting Brothers v. Pub. Sch. Employees of Wash.,

88 Wn. App. 398, 409, 945 P.2d 208 (1997)). The losing party must then appeal

the sufficiency of the evidence. Winbun v. Moore, 143 Wn.2d 206, 213, 18 P.3d

576 (2001). “‘The record must contain a sufficient quantity of evidence to persuade

a rational, fair-minded person of the truth of the premise in question.’” Id. (quoting

Canron v. Fed. Ins. Co., 82 Wn. App. 480, 486, 918 P.2d 937 (1996)).

The reviewing court should overturn a jury verdict only if it is clearly

unsupported by substantial evidence. Gorman v. Pierce County, 176 Wn. App. 63,

4
No. 87793-3-I/5

87, 307 P.3d 795 (2013). Substantial evidence is “evidence that, if believed, would

support the verdict.” Id. The jury’s role is to consider the evidence and draw

inferences from it. Burnside v. Simpson Paper Co., 123 Wn.2d 93, 108, 864 P.2d

937 (1994). “We cannot substitute our judgment for that of the jury.” Gorman, 176

Wn. App. at 87. Since the jury found that Danielson had met his burden based on

the evidence, we should review for substantial evidence instead of de novo review.