Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)

Citation: Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
Parent Document: Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2011-11-18
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4950936/hawkins-v-diel/ ↗

Full Text

822 chars

¶25 DMC successfully moved to dismiss the Hawkinses’ negligence claims under CR 50(a)(1). We review a trial court’s ruling under CR 50(a)(1) de novo, applying the same standard as that applied by the trial court. Davis v. Microsoft Corp., 149 Wn.2d 521, 530-31, 70 P.3d 126 (2003). “Granting a motion for judgment as a matter of law is appropriate when, viewing the evidence most favorable to the nonmoving party, the court can say, as a matter of law, there is no substantial evidence or reasonable inference to sustain a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Sing v. John L. Scott, Inc., 134 Wn.2d 24, 29, 948 P.2d 816 (1997). “Substantial evidence” is evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-minded, rational person that the premise is true. Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass’n v. Chelan County, 141 Wn.2d 169, 176, 4 P.3d 123 (2000).

Other Sections in This Document (37)

Full Text