WPI 165.06 Negligent Misrepresentation—Clear, Cogent, and Convincing Evidence—Combined With Pre...
6A WAPRAC WPI 165.06Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
6A Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 165.06 (7th ed.)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
April 2022 Update
Part XII. Fraud
Chapter 165. Negligent Misrepresentation
WPI 165.06 Negligent Misrepresentation—Clear, Cogent, and Convincing Evidence—Combined With Preponderance of Evidence
A party who alleges negligent misrepresentation has the burden of proving each of the elements of negligent misrepresentation by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. However, this burden of proof is applicable only to the proof of negligent misrepresentation. 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) with 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 negligent misrepresentation.
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 negligent misrepresentation cases would give the jury two tests for burden of proof that appear to be in conflict. Failure to give a clarifying instruction on the different burdens of proof is reversible error. Adjustment Dep't Olympia Credit Bureau v. Smedegard, 40 Wn.2d 76, 77–79, 241 P.2d 203 (1952). This instruction is designed to resolve this issue.
For a discussion of clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, see the Comment to WPI 165.05 (Negligent Misrepresentation—Clear, Cogent, and Convincing Evidence).
[Current as of February 2021.]
Westlaw. © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
|End of Document|