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
1,770 charspersonal indignity, and loss of enjoyment of life. In light of SPD’s failure to object to the jury instruction and verdict form and propose a clarifying special verdict form that separated out “emotional distress damages,” SPD’s corresponding argument is waived. Collings v. City First Mort. Servs., LLC, 177 Wn. App. 908, 924, 317 P.3d 1047 (2013) (“remand for a new trial is required only if the defendant objected to the use of a general verdict and proposed a clarifying special verdict form”). SPD’s arguments against waiver are unpersuasive. Although SPD submitted a proposed instruction no. 34 which read, “If your verdict is in favor of Plaintiff on the claim of whistleblower retaliation, non-economic damages (emotional distress damages) may not exceed $20,000,” SPD voluntarily withdrew this instruction before the trial court read the final instructions to the jury. Moreover, SPD concedes on appeal that it “does not assign error to Instruction No. 30.” Thus, we find waiver and decline to grant substantive relief (such as a remand to determine “emotional distress damages”) on this basis. B Waiver notwithstanding, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying SPD’s motion because the damages cap in SMC 4.20.870(B) did not require the trial court to reduce the damages award on claim 4 to $20,000. The plain language of the ordinance states that (1) a prevailing plaintiff may recover their “actual damages” and (2) the “[r]emedies for damages” include “emotional distress damages not to exceed $20,000[] and any other appropriate remedy authorized by this chapter, without limitation.” SMC 4.20.870(B) (emphasis added). Read 18 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 85066-1-I