Home Table of Contents

WPI 160.03 Fraud—Burden of Proof—Combined With Preponderance of Evidence

6A WAPRAC WPI 160.03Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil

6A Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 160.03 (7th ed.)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
April 2022 Update
Washington State Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions
Part XII. Fraud
Chapter 160. Fraud
WPI 160.03 Fraud—Burden of Proof—Combined With Preponderance of Evidence
A party who alleges [fraud] [ ] has the burden of proving each of the elements of [fraud] [ ] by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. However, this burden of proof is applicable only to the proof of [fraud] [ ]. All other allegations of [plaintiff] [defendant] [the respective parties] must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence as that term is more fully defined in other instructions.
Proof by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence means that the element must be proved by evidence that carries greater weight and is more convincing than a preponderance of evidence. Clear, cogent, and convincing evidence exists when occurrence of the element has been shown by the evidence to be highly probable. However, it does not mean that the element must be proved by evidence that is convincing beyond a reasonable doubt.
NOTE ON USE
Use bracketed material as applicable.
Use WPI 21.01 (Meaning of Burden of Proof—Preponderance of the Evidence) and this instruction in any case in which it is necessary to instruct on “preponderance of the evidence” as well as on the burden of proof involved in an allegation of fraud. However, the use of this instruction is not limited to cases involving fraud. By changing the word “fraud,” it may be used in any appropriate case in which the burden of proof of “clear, cogent, and convincing evidence” is used along with “preponderance of the evidence.”
COMMENT
If the court also has instructed the jury on “preponderance of the evidence” (WPI 21.01 (Meaning of Burden of Proof—Preponderance of the Evidence)), a general instruction on the burden of proof in fraud cases (WPI 160.02 (Fraud—Burden of Proof)) would give the jury two tests for burden of proof that appear to be in conflict. This must be clarified for the jury if error is to be avoided. Adjustment Dep't, Olympia Credit Bureau, Inc. v. Smedegard, 40 Wn.2d 76, 78, 241 P.2d 203 (1952). This instruction is designed to resolve this issue.
For a discussion of clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, and for changes made to the instruction in clarifying the definition, see the Comment accompanying WPI 160.02 (Fraud—Burden of Proof).
[Current as of February 2021.]
End of Document