WPI 20.01 Issues

In the ordinary uncomplicated case there may be no need for an issues instruction. The jury often knows the issues from the presentation by the lawyers and the other instructions setting out the duties of the parties. This instruction provides the format when a written instruction on the issues is needed at the end of trial. (If an advance oral instruction summarizing the issues is needed at the beginning of the trial, practitioners should refer to WPI 1.01 (Advance Oral Instruction—Beginning of Proceedings), or WPI 1.01.03 (Advance Oral Instruction—Preliminary Instruction on Claims and Defenses.)

Paragraph (1) will always be used. Select from among the other paragraphs according to the issues and evidence in the case. A particular case may require additional innovations.

This instruction is to be combined with WPI 20.05 (Summary of Claims). See the Note on Use to WPI 20.05 (Summary of Claims).

If a party has been involved in several accidents, or if there is a danger of confusing several related events, or any time it will make for more clarity, this instruction should be modified to refer specifically to the particular accident or event involved in this lawsuit. Insert at the beginning of the instruction an additional paragraph: “The plaintiff claims that …,” followed by a brief statement of the date, place, and nature of the occurrence involved in this lawsuit.

If the case contains a cross-claim between defendants, or a third-party complaint, this instruction should be used for the plaintiff and defendant, and similar paragraphs should be added, as pertinent, to set forth the issues between the cross-claimant and the cross-defendant or the issues between the third-party claimant and the third-party defendant. In such cases it is suggested that the actual names of the parties be used in the instruction instead of “plaintiff,” “defendant,” “cross-claimant,” “cross-defendant,” “third-party claimant,” and “third-party defendant.”

For cases involving multiple claims, use WPI 41.05 (Counterclaim—Cross-Claim—Third-Party Claim) along with this instruction.

This instruction, which sets forth the issues or claims that are properly supported by evidence, is preferable to the detailed statement of the facts or evidence claimed or pleaded by each party that was often used under the old practice. See Wiehl, Instructing a Jury in Washington, 36 Wash.L.Rev. 378, 380 (1961). By the use of WPI 1.01 (Advance Oral Instruction—Beginning of Proceedings), or WPI 1.01.03 (Advance Oral Instruction—Preliminary Instruction on Claims and Defenses), the jury will have heard the general factual outline of the case, and accordingly needs no special instruction thereon in the written instructions on the law. In Greene v. Rothschild, 60 Wn.2d 508, 512, 374 P.2d 566, 569 (1962), overruled on other grounds at 68 Wn.2d 1, 402 P.2d 356 (1965), the court specifically held that the requirement for written instructions applies only to the substantive law of the case and not to the usual and necessary oral admonitions and instructions to the jury throughout the trial.

Each party is entitled to have the trial court instruct on its theory of the case if there is substantial evidence to support it. Egede-Nissen v. Crystal Mountain, Inc., 93 Wn.2d 127, 135, 606 P.2d 1214 (1980). It is not enough to state in general terms that one party claims that the other was negligent. Dabroe v. Rhodes Co., 64 Wn.2d 431, 392 P.2d 317 (1964); Woods v. Goodson, 55 Wn.2d 687, 349 P.2d 731 (1960). Merely stating there is a claim of negligence does not satisfy the obligation of instructing the jury on the specific theory of the case. See Meredith v. Hanson, 40 Wn.App. 170, 697 P.2d 602 (1985); Gammon v. Clark Equipment, 38 Wn.App. 274, 686 P.2d 1102 (1984), judgment affirmed 104 Wn.2d 613, 707 P.2d 685 (1985); Pearce v. Motel 6, 28 Wn.App. 474, 624 P.2d 215 (1981) (holding that defendant was entitled to a requested issues instruction that was substantially the same as WPI 20.01).

The word “claims,” as used in this instruction, is not limited to the issues raised by the pleadings. By the time the case is submitted to the jury, the issues may have been framed by a pretrial order, by trial amendment, and by evidence introduced at the trial. CR 15; Meisenholder, The Effect of Proposed Rules 7 through 25 on Present Washington Procedures: Part II, 32 Wash. L.Rev. 336, 352 (1957). Also some issues, such as aggravation of a pre-existing condition in an injury action, may be in the case properly although not pleaded in the complaint. Johnson v. Howard, 45 Wn.2d 433, 449, 275 P.2d 736, 745 (1954); Frick v. Washington Water Power Co., 76 Wash. 12, 135 P. 470 (1913).

The phrase “a proximate cause” is the proper terminology for this instruction; “the proximate cause” is incorrect. Milne v. City of Seattle, 20 Wn.2d 30, 33, 145 P.2d 888, 890 (1944); Bullock v. Yakima Valley Transp. Co., 108 Wash. 413, 435, 184 P. 641, 648 (1919).