Home Table of Contents

WPI 20.05 Summary of Claims

6 WAPRAC WPI 20.05Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil

6 Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 20.05 (7th ed.)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
April 2022 Update
Washington State Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions
Part III. Issues—Burden of Proof
Chapter 20. Issues in the Case
WPI 20.05 Summary of Claims
The [following] [foregoing] is merely a summary of the claims of the parties. You are not to consider the summary as proof of the matters claimed [unless admitted by the opposing party]; and you are to consider only those matters that are [admitted or are] established by the evidence. These claims have been outlined solely to aid you in understanding the issues.
This instruction is to be inserted as part of WPI 20.0 (Issues), or WPI 20.02 (Issues—Claim and Counterclaim), or the issues instruction as adapted to the case. As the first two bracketed words indicate, this paragraph may be inserted either at the beginning or the end of the other instructions.
The other bracketed material is to be used if some of the claims are admitted. In that case, the instruction on issues should specify which claims are admitted.
This instruction is cited with approval in McLaughlin v. Cooke, 112 Wn.2d 829, 774 P.2d 1171 (1989). The court stated that an instruction summarizing the contentions of the parties is not reversible error when followed by cautionary language, such as that in WPI 20.05 that “explains to the jury proper use of the instruction for clarification of plaintiff's contentions, despite the possibility that one or more of the contentions may not be supported by substantial evidence.” McLaughlin v. Cooke, 112 Wn.2d at 834.
In Bowers v. Fibreboard Corp., 66 Wn.App. 454, 832 P.2d 523 (1992), the Court of Appeals affirmed the giving of a “claims” instruction in a products liability case that identified seven specific ways in which the defendants were claimed to be negligent. The trial judge included cautionary language similar to WPI 20.05. Although the court stated that the instruction was not well organized and lacked precision, the court found that the instruction was not misleading as to the legal duties of the defendants when read with the other instructions given.
[Current as of September 2018.]
End of Document