Home Table of Contents

WPI 110.30.01 Special Verdict Form—Product Liability—No Affirmative Defenses—No Empty Chairs

6 WAPRAC WPI 110.30.01Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil

6 Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 110.30.01 (7th ed.)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
April 2022 Update
Washington State Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions
Part IX. Particularized Standards of Conduct
Chapter 110. Product Liability
WPI 110.30.01 Special Verdict Form—Product Liability—No Affirmative Defenses—No Empty Chairs
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR COUNTY
,
Plaintiff,
No.
vs.SPECIAL
,VERDICT FORM
Defendant.
We, the jury, answer the questions submitted by the court as follows:
[QUESTION 1:Did the defendant supply a product that was not reasonably safe [in construction at the time the product left the defendant's control] [because it did not conform to the manufacturer's express warranty] [as designed] [because adequate warnings or instructions were not provided with the product]?]
[QUESTION 1:Was the defendant negligent in that the product was not reasonably safe because adequate warnings or instructions were not provided after the product was manufactured?]
ANSWER: (Write “yes” or “no”)
(DIRECTION: If you answered “no” to Question 1, sign this verdict form. If you answered “yes” to Question 1, answer Question 2.)
QUESTION 2:Was the unsafe condition of the product a proximate cause of injury or damage to the plaintiff?
ANSWER: (Write “yes” or “no”)
(DIRECTION: If you answered “no” to Question 2, sign this verdict form. If you answered “yes” to Question 2, answer Question 3.)
QUESTION 3:What do you find to be the plaintiff's amount of damages?
ANSWER:
[(a) Past Economic Damages$ ]
[(b) Future Economic Damages$ ]
[(c) Noneconomic Damages$ ]
(DIRECTION: Sign this verdict form and notify the bailiff.)
DATE: ,
Presiding Juror
NOTE ON USE
This special verdict form is for use in product liability actions against a manufacturer in which there are no affirmative defenses and there are no other entities that have been identified as possibly being at fault for the plaintiff's damages.
Use bracketed material as applicable. Question 1 is set out in alternative form. The first option applies a strict liability standard. This option should be used if the product is claimed to be not reasonably safe in construction (WPI 110.01), not reasonably safe because it did not conform to the manufacturer's express warranty (WPI 110.01.01), not reasonably safe in design (WPI 110.02), or not reasonably safe because adequate warnings were not provided with the product (WPI 110.03). The second option applies a negligence standard. The second option should only be used if it is claimed that the manufacturer was negligent in that the product was not reasonably safe because adequate warnings were not provided after the product was manufactured (WPI 110.03.01).
If there is a jury issue whether the defendant was a manufacturer as defined in RCW 7.72.010, insert the following as the first question in the verdict form.
QUESTION 1: Was the defendant a manufacturer?
ANSWER: (Write “yes” or “no”)
(DIRECTION: If you answered “no” to Question 1, sign this verdict form. If you answered “yes” to Question 1, then answer Question 2.)
Use WPI 1.11 (Concluding Instruction—For Special Verdict Form) and WPI 30.01.01 (Measure of Economic and Noneconomic Damages—Personal Injury—No Contributory Negligence) with this verdict form.
If defenses are claimed under WPI 110.05 (Government Contract Specifications—Defense) or WPI 110.08 (Useful Safe Life), questions will need to be added to the verdict form covering these defenses.
For a personal injury case involving married co-plaintiffs, the verdict form and damage instruction should take into account the community property issues discussed in Brown v. Brown, 100 Wn.2d 729, 675 P.2d 1207 (1984). See the Comment to WPI 30.01.01 (Measure of Economic and Noneconomic Damages—Personal Injury—No Contributory Negligence).
COMMENT
RCW 7.72.010(6).
Recovery for “harm.” RCW 7.72.030(1) and (2) in general subject a manufacturer to liability for a claimant's “harm” that is proximately caused by the manufacturer's product. “Harm” is defined by RCW 7.72.010(6) as “includ[ing] any damages recognized by the courts of this state: PROVIDED, That the term ‘harm’ does not include direct or consequential economic loss under Title 62A RCW.” See Bylsma v. Burger King Corp., 176 Wn.2d 555, 561–62, 293 P.3d 1168 (2013) (“The WPLA permits relief for emotional distress damages, in the absence of physical injury …”).
Economic damages. The Washington Supreme Court has developed a “risk of harm” analysis for determining whether the Washington Product Liability Act bars a claim for damages under the “direct or consequential economic loss” language of RCW 7.72.010(6). See the discussion of the economic loss rule (renamed as the independent duty doctrine) in the Introduction to this chapter, WPI 110.00.
Pain and suffering. In Washington State Physicians Insurance Exchange v. Fisons Corp., 122 Wn.2d 299, 858 P.2d 1054 (1993), a physician brought a failure-to-warn claim against a drug manufacturer. The physician sought recovery for the pain and suffering he experienced when the drug injured his patient. The court held that a physician's pain and suffering due to a patient's injury are not “damages recognized by the courts of this state” and therefore fail to meet the definition of “harm” under RCW 7.72.010(6). Physicians Insurance, 122 Wn.2d at 318–22.
Future damages. The verdict form has a separate line for future damages. If a verdict or award for future economic damages is at least one hundred thousand dollars, RCW 4.56.260 requires the court, at the request of a party, to enter a judgment providing for the periodic payment in whole or in part of the future economic damages.
[Current as of December 2020.]
End of Document