WPI150.11Factors—Remote and Speculative
6A WAPRAC WPI 150.11Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
6A Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 150.11 (7th ed.)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
July 2019 Update
Part X-A. Eminent Domain
Chapter 150. Eminent Domain—General Instructions
WPI 150.11 Factors—Remote and Speculative
In determining the amount of just compensation, you should limit your consideration to those factors that will actually affect the fair market value of the property and that are established by the evidence. You should not consider any factors that a well-informed and prudent person would find to be remote, imaginary, or speculative.
NOTE ON USE
Use this instruction in every condemnation trial.
An earlier version of WPI 150.11 has been quoted and approved in the case law. See State v. Williams, 68 Wn.2d 946, 416 P.2d 350 (1966) (quoting the original pattern instruction and finding it more concise and balanced than the instruction being upheld in the case); City of Renton v. Scott Pac. Terminal, Inc., 9 Wn.App. 364, 373–74, 512 P.2d 1137 (1973) (concluding that the original pattern instruction “is a correct statement of the law”).
Failure to give an earlier version of WPI 150.11 was held to be reversible error in a five to four decision in which the majority held that the particular evidence in that case required such an instruction in order to eliminate speculation on damages. State v. Evans, 96 Wn.2d 119, 127–28, P.2d 845 (1981) (concluding that the instruction was necessary because a series of pre-trial and trial rulings had “created great confusion and necessarily required the jurors to speculate as to the meaning of the court's instructions”).
Speculative elements are sometimes interjected into a trial by evidence of uses (Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 47 Wash. 131, 91 P. 626 (1907)), or damages (Idaho & W. Ry. Co. v. Coey, 73 Wash. 291, 131 P. 810 (1913)), or the jury speculating on value by an improper use of admissible evidence (e.g., multiplication of price times yardage in pit site cases, State v. Mottman Mercantile Co., 51 Wn.2d 722, 321 P.2d 912 (1958)).
[Current as of October 2016.]
Westlaw. © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
|End of Document|