The county fails to demonstrate prejudice. See Lake Hills, 198 Wn.2d at 225-26.
CONCLUSION
The narrow question presented is whether a jury instruction that combined
two WPI definitions of a term—which has never been defined by the legislature or
examined by this court—was misleading to a jury tasked with determining
both retaliation and discrimination claims. While instruction 8 was ambiguous
to the extent it combined pattern definitions without direction on how to apply them
to each of the claims, the county has failed to demonstrate reversible error.
This instruction did not prejudice the county. Id. at 227 (no reversible error
when potentially misleading instruction did not prejudice the challenging party).
Given that other appellate issues remain, we reverse and remand to the
Court of Appeals to decide the additional issues raised on appeal and decline
to assess attorney fees at this time. RAP 13.7(b); RAP 18.1.
16
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Verduzco v. King County
No. 103749-0
______________________________
WE CONCUR:
___________________________ ______________________________
___________________________ ______________________________
___________________________ ______________________________
Madsen, J.P.T.
___________________________ ______________________________
Yu, J.P.T.
17