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

1,520 chars

jury was instructed that the value of damages should “reasonably and fairly

compensate [Danielson].” We presume the jury followed the court’s instructions.

State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741, 766, 278 P.3d 653 (2012).

This court can therefore not hold upon review that the jury’s award was

“unmistakably” based on passion or prejudice. Coogan, 197 Wn.2d at 814. We

find no abuse of discretion. 9

8 Although the hospital objected to the first comment in closing argument, it did not

object to this comment in the rebuttal, or request a curative instruction. A party
waives review of an allegedly improper comment if they do not timely object.
Collins v. Clark County Fire Dist. No. 5, 155 Wn. App. 48, 97, 231 P.3d 1211
(2010). This is especially true when, as in this case, “the trial court instructs the
jury that arguments are not evidence and that argument not supported by evidence
is to be disregarded.” Wash. State Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp.,
122 Wn.2d 299, 334, 858 P.2d 1054 (1993). The hospital therefore may have also
waived the argument that Danielson’s comments during rebuttal improperly
sparked passion or prejudice.
9 The court granted Danielson’s request for attorney fees under RCW 49.60.030

in the amount of $2,068,582.49. The hospital challenges the award of fees on the
grounds that the verdict itself must be reversed. Since we affirm the judgment, we
also affirm the attorney fee award.
27
No. 87793-3-I/28

III. CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s order.

WE CONCUR:

28