Home Table of Contents

WPI 6.10.01 Stipulations

6 WAPRAC WPI 6.10.01Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil

6 Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 6.10.01 (7th ed.)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
April 2022 Update
Washington State Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions
Part I. General Instructions
Chapter 6. Oral Instructions During Trial
WPI 6.10.01 Stipulations
The parties have agreed that the following evidence will be presented to you:
(Read stipulation into record.)
This is evidence that you will evaluate and weigh with all of the other evidence.
Use this oral instruction when the parties stipulate that particular evidence may be presented to the jury. Use WPI 6.10.02 (Use of Admissions or Binding Stipulations Under CR 36(b)) instead of this instruction if the parties' agreement conclusively establishes the truth of the evidence.
CR 2A governs the use of stipulations.
This instruction is not designed to cover any stipulation that conclusively establishes the truth of the evidence. Such a stipulation removes a factual issue from the jury's consideration and does not involve evidence for the jury to evaluate. In such a case, the jury should be instructed that the fact or facts are not disputed or are agreed upon. In such a case, the judge would need to decide, depending on the significance of the stipulated facts, whether an oral instruction is sufficient or whether the stipulation is important enough that it should be incorporated into an exhibit for the jury or taken into account in the written jury instructions, such as if the stipulation establishes an element of a cause of action. See further discussion in the Comment to WPI 6.10.02 (Use of Admissions or Binding Stipulations Under CR 36(b)).
For example, this instruction should not be used if the parties stipulate that the defendant was driving 60 miles per hour, for this agreement would conclusively establish an issue for the jury. By comparison, this instruction would be appropriate if the parties merely stipulate to the admissibility of a police report estimating the defendant's speed. In Hawkins v. Marshall, 92 Wn.App 38, 962 P.2d 834 (1998), the Court of Appeals reversed a judgment in favor of plaintiff where the trial court determined that the failure to object to the admissibility of medical records admitted pursuant to ER 904 was equivalent to stipulating that the records established the appropriate amount of medical loss. See also ER 904(d).
For a detailed discussion of the issues involved in determining whether a stipulation or admission conclusively establishes the truth of particular evidence, see generally Tegland, 5B Washington Practice, Evidence Law and Practice §§ 801.52–.55 (6th ed.).
[Current as of November 2020.]
End of Document