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

1,763 chars

21:13 (7th ed. Nov. 2025) (stating that “most courts have interpreted Fed. R. Evid.
407 and state equivalents as excluding only evidence of the actual implementation
of a safety improvement, but not the reports or memoranda that lead up to the
improvements”; noting that “[a] careful reading of the rule . . . supports this
interpretation: To be excluded under the rule, the measure at issue must be one
that could have been taken before the event that gave rise to the claim. One cannot
investigate an accident before it occurs, so an investigation and report of the cause
of an accident, . . . cannot be a measure that is excluded from evidence under the
rule” (some alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
5 The Tenth Circuit recently declined to diverge from Rocky Mountain in Packard

v. City of Denver, No. 24-1367, 2026 WL 1077632 (10th Cir. Apr. 21, 2026), holding
that testimony of investigation into police response to protests was not barred by
ER 407 even though the investigation conclusions included “implied”
recommendations.
15
No. 87793-3-I/16

there is no evidence that the finding regarding the inadequate investigation of the

racial slur served any remedial end. We hold that the findings and

recommendations in the Covington report are not evidence that the hospital has

actually taken remedial measures to address the hostile work environment that

Danielson describes. The court therefore did not abuse its discretion in declining

to provide a limiting instruction.

3. Jury Instructions

The hospital argues that the court erred when it replaced the word

“harassment” in the jury instructions with the words “hostile work environment”

because it removed Danielson’s burden to establish harassment. We disagree.