Lian v. Stalick, 106 Wash. App. 811 (2001)

Citation: Lian v. Stalick, 106 Wash. App. 811 (2001)
Parent Document: Lian v. Stalick, 106 Wash. App. 811 (2001)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2001-06-19
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4931615/lian-v-stalick/ ↗

Full Text

731 chars

“As to a motion for a new trial based on a claim of excessive damages, CR 59(a)(5), the damages must be so excessive as to unmistakably indicate that the verdict was the result of passion or prejudice.” Nord v. Shoreline Sav. Ass’n, 116 Wn.2d 477, 486, 805 P.2d 800 (1991). The amount of damages must be “so excessive as to be outside the range of evidence or so great as to shock the court’s conscience.” Id. at 487 (citing Rasor v. Retail Credit Co., 87 Wn.2d 516, 531, 554 P.2d 1041 (1976)). And the passion or prejudice “must be of such manifest clarity as to make it unmistakable.” Bingaman v. Grays Harbor Cmty. Hosp., 103 Wn.2d 831, 836, 699 P.2d 1230 (1985) (citing James v. Robeck, 79 Wn.2d 864, 870, 490 P.2d 878 (1971)).

Other Sections in This Document (99)

Full Text