Washington State Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions
Appendices
Appendix D. Suggested Combinations of Instructions
INTRODUCTION
Many of the instructions in this volume lend themselves to being combined with other instructions. When two or more instructions address interrelated topics and are not already lengthy, juror understanding may be enhanced by combining them into a single instruction. This appendix includes some examples for combining instructions. Judges and practitioners are encouraged to use other combinations as appropriate.
This appendix is intended as a handy tool in the use of the WPI instructions and not as an amendment of the instructions as they appear in the main volume. The instructions in this appendix will not fit all cases. Variations will have to be made for particular cases by reference to the main volume.
In the following examples, the parties are referred to with the labels “plaintiff” and “defendant.” In drafting instructions for a particular case, however, practitioners should remembers that juror understanding is often enhanced when the instructions use the parties' names rather than these labels.
Table of Combined Instructions
Appendix D Number
WPI Numbers
Description of Combined Instruction
1
20.01 20.05
Issues instruction for claim of negligence without contributory negligence.
2
20.01 20.05
Issues instruction for claim of negligence and contributory negligence.
3
21.02 21.05
Burden of proof instruction for a claim of negligence and one affirmative defense other than contributory negligence, when contributory negligence is not claimed; injury and property damage.
4
21.01 15.01 10.01 10.02
Definitions instruction for claim of negligence without contributory negligence, using traditional definition of proximate cause.
5
21.01 15.01 10.01 10.02 11.01 11.07
Definitions instruction for claim of negligence and contributory negligence, using traditional definition of proximate cause.
6
10.01 10.02 60.03 60.01
Definitions instruction for negligence claim arising from a statutory violation.
7
23.01 21.01 15.01
Issues, burden of proof, and definitions instruction for directed verdict or admitted liability case; no contributory negligence; traditional definition of proximate cause.
8
13.03 21.12
Definitions and burden of proof instruction for implied primary assumption of risk.
9
1.08 1.09
Concluding instruction for case involving single plaintiff, single defendant, and general verdict forms WPI 45.01 or 45.20.
App. D No. 1
(20.01 and 20.05: Issues instruction for claim of negligence without contributory negligence.)
No.
The plaintiff claims that the defendant was negligent in . The plaintiff claims that was a proximate cause of injuries and damage to plaintiff. The defendant denies these claims. The defendant further denies the nature and extent of the claimed injuries and damage.
The foregoing is merely a summary of the claims of the parties. You are not to consider the summary as proof of the matters claimed and you are to consider only those matters that are established by the evidence. These claims have been outlined solely to aid you in understanding the issues.
App. D No. 2
(20.01 and 20.05: Issues instruction for claim of negligence and contributory negligence.)
No.
The plaintiff claims that the defendant was negligent in . The plaintiff claims that was a proximate cause of injuries and damage to plaintiff. The defendant denies these claims. The defendant further denies the nature and extent of the claimed injuries and damage.
In addition, the defendant claims as an affirmative defense that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in . The defendant claims that was a proximate cause of plaintiff's own injuries and damage. The plaintiff denies these claims. The plaintiff further denies the nature and extent of the claimed injuries and damage.
The foregoing is merely a summary of the claims of the parties. You are not to consider the summary as proof of the matters claimed and you are to consider only those matters that are established by the evidence. These claims have been outlined solely to aid you in understanding the issues.
App. D No. 3
(21.02 and 21.05: Burden of proof instruction for a claim of negligence and one affirmative defense other than contributory negligence, when contributory negligence is not claimed; injury and property damage. The final paragraph of WPI 21.02 has been modified as suggested in the Note on Use to WPI 21.05.)
No.
The plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following propositions:
(1) That the defendant acted, or failed to act, in one of the ways claimed by the plaintiff and that in so acting, or failing to act, the defendant was negligent;
(2) That the plaintiff was injured and the plaintiff's property was damaged;
(3) That the negligence of the defendant was a proximate cause of the injury to the plaintiff and the damage to plaintiff's property.
The defendant has the burden of proving the following affirmative defense claimed by the defendant:
If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these propositions has been proved on which the plaintiff has the burden of proof, and that the defendant's affirmative defense has not been proved, your verdict should be for the plaintiff. On the other hand, if the defendant's affirmative defense has been proved, or if any of these propositions on which the plaintiff has the burden of proof has not been proved, your verdict should be for the defendant.
App. D No. 4
(21.01, 15.01, 10.01, and 10.02: Definitions instruction for claim of negligence without contributory negligence, using traditional definition of proximate cause.)
No.
When it is said that a party has the burden of proof on any proposition, or that any proposition must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence, or the expression “if you find” is used, it means that you must be persuaded, considering all the evidence in the case, that the proposition on which that party has the burden of proof is more probably true than not true.
The term “proximate cause” means a cause which in a direct sequence, unbroken by any new independent cause, produces the injury complained of and without which such injury would not have happened.
Negligence is the failure to exercise ordinary care. It is the doing of some act that a reasonably careful person would not do under the same or similar circumstances or the failure to do some act that a reasonably careful person would have done under the same or similar circumstances.
Ordinary care means the care a reasonably careful person would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.
App. D No. 5
(21.01, 15.01, 10.01, 10.02, 11.01, and 11.07: Definitions instruction for claim of negligence and contributory negligence, using traditional definition of proximate cause.)
No.
When it is said that a party has the burden of proof on any proposition, or that any proposition must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence, or the expression “if you find” is used, it means that you must be persuaded, considering all the evidence in the case, that the proposition on which that party has the burden of proof is more probably true than not true.
The term “proximate cause” means a cause which in a direct sequence, unbroken by any new independent cause, produces the injury complained of and without which such injury would not have happened.
Negligence is the failure to exercise ordinary care. It is the doing of some act that a reasonably careful person would not do under the same or similar circumstances or the failure to do some act that a reasonably careful person would have done under the same or similar circumstances.
Ordinary care means the care a reasonably careful person would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.
Contributory negligence is negligence on the part of a person claiming injury or damage that is a proximate cause of the injury or damage complained of. If you find contributory negligence, you must determine the degree of negligence, expressed as a percentage, attributable to the person claiming injury or damage. The court will furnish you a special verdict form for this purpose. Your answers to the questions in the special verdict form will furnish the basis by which the court will apportion damages, if any.
App. D No. 6
(10.01, 10.02, 60.03, and 60.01: Definitions instruction for negligence claim arising from a statutory violation.)
No.
Negligence is the failure to exercise ordinary care. It is the doing of some act that a reasonably careful person would not do under the same or similar circumstances or the failure to do some act that a reasonably careful person would have done under the same or similar circumstances.
Ordinary care means the care a reasonably careful person would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.
The violation, if any, of a statute is not necessarily negligence, but may be considered by you as evidence in determining negligence. A statute provides that: (insert quotation from, or paraphrasing of, applicable statutory language).
App. D No. 7
(23.01, 21.01, and 15.01: Issues, burden of proof, and definitions instruction for directed verdict or admitted liability case; no contributory negligence; traditional definition of proximate cause.)
No.
The defendant is liable for any injury or damage that was proximately caused by the occurrence. The plaintiff has the burden of proving what injuries or damages to the plaintiff were proximately caused by this occurrence and what amount the plaintiff should recover.
When it is said that a party has the burden of proof on any proposition, or that any proposition must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence, or the expression “if you find” is used, it means that you must be persuaded, considering all the evidence in the case, that the proposition on which that party has the burden of proof is more probably true than not true.
The term “proximate cause” means a cause which in a direct sequence, unbroken by any new independent cause, produces the injury complained of and without which such injury would not have happened.
App. D No. 8
(13.03 and 21.12: Definitions and burden of proof for implied primary assumption of risk.)
No.
It is a defense to an action for personal injury that the person injured impliedly assumed a specific risk of harm.
A person impliedly assumes a risk of harm, if that person knows of the specific risk associated with an activity, understands its nature, voluntarily chooses to accept the risk by engaging in that activity, and impliedly consents to relieve the defendant of a duty of care owed to the person in relation to the specific risk.
To establish this defense, the defendant has the burden of proving each of the following propositions:
(1) That the person injured had knowledge of the specific risk associated with (the activity);
(2) That the person injured understood the nature of this risk; and
(3) That the person injured voluntarily chose to accept the risk by engaging in (the activity) and impliedly consented to relieve the defendant of the duty of care owed to the person injured in relation to the risk.
If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these propositions has been proved, then, using 100% as the total combined conduct of the parties (negligence and assumption of risk) that contributed to the plaintiff's damages, you must reduce the total damages you find to have been sustained by the plaintiff, by the percentage of that conduct attributable to the risk specifically assumed by the person injured. The court will furnish you with a special verdict form for this purpose.
App. D No. 9
(1.08 and 1.09: Concluding instruction for case involving single plaintiff, single defendant, and general verdict forms WPI 45.01 or 45.20.)
No.
When you are taken to the jury room to deliberate, your first duty is to select a presiding juror. The presiding juror's responsibility is to see that you discuss the issues in this case in an orderly and reasonable manner, that you discuss each issue submitted for your decision fully and fairly, and that each one of you has a chance to be heard on every question before you.
You will be given the exhibits admitted in evidence, these instructions, and verdict forms for recording your verdict.
If you decide the case in favor of the plaintiff, then you will use Verdict Form A and fill in the amount. If you decide the case for the defendant, then you will use Verdict Form B.
During your deliberations, you may discuss any notes that you have taken during the trial, if you wish. You have been allowed to take notes to assist you in remembering clearly, not to substitute for your memory or the memories or notes of other jurors. However, do not assume that your notes are more or less accurate than your memory.
You will need to rely on your notes and memory as to the testimony presented in this case. Testimony will rarely, if ever, be repeated for you during your deliberations.
If you need to ask the court a question that you have been unable to answer among yourselves after reviewing the evidence and instructions, write the question simply and clearly. The presiding juror should sign and date the question and give it to the bailiff. The court will confer with counsel to determine what answer, if any, can be given.
In your question to the court, do not indicate how your deliberations are proceeding. Do not state how the jurors have voted on any particular question, issue, or claim, or in any other way express your opinions about the case.
In order to reach a verdict ten of you must agree. When ten of you have agreed, then the presiding juror will fill in the verdict form. The presiding juror must sign the verdict whether or not the presiding juror agrees with it. The presiding juror will then inform the bailiff that you have reached a verdict. The bailiff will conduct you back into this courtroom where the verdict will be announced.
Appendices