Court Opinion

ID: 9529860
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:54:56.805215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:56.383296
License: Public Domain

Sweeney, C.J.
(dissenting) — Although it is true that Adam K. Honegger objected to the court’s contributory fault instruction, he did not request a verdict form which would have required the jury to segregate his damages between his intentional and negligent causes of action. Had he done so, he would have eliminated the need for remand. The special verdict form he did propose did not require the jury to divide the total damage award between the intentional and negligent acts of Yoke’s Washington Foods, Inc. Nor did Mr. Honegger object to the verdict form used by the court. The error he now claims was therefore invited. Sdorra v. Dickinson, 80 Wn. App. 695, 701-02, 910 P.2d 1328 (1996). I therefore respectfully dissent.
Reconsideration denied October 16, 1996.
Review denied at 131 Wn.2d 1016 (1997).