Opinion ID: 2576177
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Superior Court's Refusal To Direct a Verdict on the Direct Liability Claims Was Harmless Error.

Text: Cummins argues that the superior court erred by refusing to direct a verdict for Cummins on the product liability, direct negligence, breach of contract, and breach of warranty claims. Even assuming error, the failure to grant a directed verdict on the direct (non-vicarious) liability claims was harmless. If a jury returns separate verdicts on independent claims, we can affirm the judgment if substantial evidence supports any of those claims. [39] Substantial evidence here supported the jury's findings that P & R was negligent and that Cummins, Inc. and Cummins Northwest were vicariously liable for P & R's negligence. There is consequently no need to address the merits of Cummins's directed verdict motions on the direct liability claims.
For these reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment.