WPI 10.07 Gross Negligence—Definition

Use with WPI 10.01 (Negligence—Adult—Definition), and WPI 10.02 (Ordinary Care—Adult—Definition). Because this instruction refers to negligence and ordinary care, jurors may find it helpful if these instructions are included on a single page.

This instruction was cited with approval in Fielder v. Sterling Park Homeowners Association, 914 F. Supp. 2d 1222, 1228 (W.D. Wash. 2012).

The term “gross negligence,” although found in many statutes, has not been statutorily defined. See, e.g., RCW 4.24.264 and RCW 7.70.090. The instruction is based upon the meaning of gross negligence as it was developed under the former host-guest statute, RCW 46.08.080, that was repealed in 1974. “In determining the degree of negligence, the law must necessarily look to the hazards of the situation confronting the actor.” Nist v. Tudor, 67 Wn.2d 322, 331,407 P.2d 798 (1965).

In Youngblood v. Schireman, 53 Wn.App. 95, 108–10, 765 P.2d 1312 (1988), the court discussed gross negligence under RCW 4.24.300, the “good Samaritan” statute. The opinion states that gross negligence is negligence that is substantially and appreciably greater than ordinary negligence. Youngblood v. Schireman, 53 Wn.App. at 109.

In Boyce v. West, 71 Wn.App. 657, 665, 862 P.2d 592 (1993), the court, without citing to WPI 10.07, stated that “to raise an issue of gross negligence, there must be substantial evidence of serious negligence.”