8 solely on the basis that it was misleading or confusing.
Opening Br. of Appellant/Cross-Resp’t King County, at 2, 39-40 (Wash. Ct. App.
No. 57052-1-II (2023)).
Instruction 8 listed both pattern definitions sequentially, as Verduzco raised
both types of claims. The WPI anticipates that a plaintiff might bring both types
of claims and recommends courts “combine” the two instructions “to differentiate”
the two claims. WPI 330.01.02 note on use, 330.06 note on use. The WPI offers
no further guidance on how to do so. 4
Given that the instructions could have been read as alternatives or
as individually required elements, the instruction as given may have been
misleading. Assuming—without deciding—that the WPI’s construction
of the definitions accurately state the law, combining the two WPI definitions
into a single instruction, with no further direction, could have misled the jury.
As given, the instruction is ambiguous as to how the definition applied to each
of Verduzco’s claims.
Ambiguity in a jury instruction may be misleading. Anfinson,
174 Wn.2d at 874. For example, Anfinson involved a jury instruction on
representative evidence in a class action for violations of the Washington
4
Nothing prevents the WPI Committee from drafting additional pattern instructions for use
in trials where more than one type of claim is present. Further, trial courts could anticipate
confusion and clarify by specifying definitions or providing special verdict forms.
11
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Verduzco v. King County
No. 103749-0
Minimum Wage Act. The instruction stated that the jury should not consider
individual work experiences unless it finds “‘that they reflect policies, procedures,