Court Opinion

ID: 9549848
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:25:39.018613+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:58.528252
License: Public Domain

Houghton, C.J.
(dissenting) — I respectfully dissent. The record here does not support the majority’s conclusion that a new trial was warranted based upon juror misconduct. During voir dire, the realtor-juror indicated that she knew Taylor. She was then asked if her knowledge and familiarity with Taylor prevent her from "giving either party a fair trial.” She indicated that it would not.
Generally courts are reluctant to disturb a jury’s verdict absent a strong and affirmative showing of juror misconduct. See, e.g., Richards v. Overlake Hosp. Med. Ctr., 59 Wn. App. 266, 271, 796 P.2d 737 (1990). A juror’s responses during voir dire may amount to misconduct requiring a new trial where the juror "give[s] a false answer on a material matter during voir dire examination that conceals information properly requested by a litigant.” Robinson v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 113 Wn.2d 154, 160, 776 P.2d 676 (1989) (quoting Smith v. Kent, 11 Wn. App. 439, 444, 523 P.2d 446 (1974)).
Here the juror was asked whether her knowledge of Taylor would prevent her from giving the parties a "fair trial.” Because this question was vague and open-ended, her response cannot be characterized as a false answer. Further, because the question was too vague to effectively inquire into her opinions regarding Taylor’s reputation as an appraiser, her response cannot be considered as concealing information properly requested by a litigant. Boe had the opportunity to ask more pointed questions, but declined to do so. For these reasons, I believe that Boe fails to make the strong and affirmative showing of juror misconduct required to support a new trial order. I would reverse the trial court and reinstate the jury’s verdict.
I would also decline to limit timber trespass damages as the majority has. In concluding that timber trespass damages are not limited by the value of the land, the majority concedes that trees have value beyond that of a mere com*740modity. But the rule adopted here arbitrarily limits timber trespass damages by requiring that they be reasonably related to the fair market value of the land.
In Washington, a plaintiff may bring an action for timber trespass under RCW 64.12.030 where the defendant unlawfully removes ornamental trees and shrubs from the plaintiffs property. Tatum v. R&R Cable, Inc., 30 Wn. App. 580, 583, 636 P.2d 508 (1981), overruled on other grounds, Beckmann v. Spokane Transit Auth., 107 Wn.2d 785, 790, 733 P.2d 960 (1987). In such cases the appropriate measure of damages is the cost of replacement and restoration. Birchler v. Castello Land Co., Inc., 81 Wn. App. 603, 607, 915 P.2d 564 (1996), aff’d, 133 Wn.2d 106 (1997); Sherrell v. Selfors, 73 Wn. App. 596, 603, 871 P.2d 168 (1994); Tatum, 30 Wn. App. at 583.
Here, calculating replacement and restoration costs is within the province of the jury as the finder of fact. Selfors, 73 Wn. App. at 603; Tatum, 30 Wn. App. at 583-84. There was evidence before the jury that the actual cost of replacement was well in excess of $75,000. Further, there was evidence that, under the basic formula method, the total value of the removed trees was $84,597. Because the jury’s award of $75,000 is supported by substantial evidence, I would affirm.
The majority also relies upon the jury’s award of $25,000 for emotional damages to support its conclusion that the "total award” is unreasonably excessive in relation to the land. A plaintiff in a timber trespass action may recover for emotional distress in addition to statutory damages. Birchler, 81 Wn. App. at 607-09. No case cited by the majority supports the proposition that emotional damages are in any way limited by the value of the land. Because they are properly segregated here, I believe that it is improper to aggregate emotional and statutory damages as the majority has here.
Review denied at 134 Wn.2d 1020 (1998).