Court Opinion

ID: 9544201
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:53:09.436053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:21.475278
License: Public Domain

Stafford, J.
(dissenting) — Petitioner has argued the prejudicial nature of instruction 16 given by the trial court as well as the error committed by its failure to give petitioner’s proposed instruction 9. A careful review of the record reveals that proper use of these two instructions was absolutely basic to the jury’s consideration of the issues. I cannot agree with the majority’s rejection of petitioner’s arguments.
Rather than lengthen this dissent unduly, I shall adopt, in full, the dissent written by Judge Horowitz in Hamilton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 9 Wn. App. 180, 188-201, 511 P.2d 1020 (1973). Judge Horowitz’ well reasoned dissent discusses fully the prejudicial effect of instruction 16 and the prejudicial impact of the trial court’s refusal to give petitioner’s proposed instruction 9.
I would reverse the Court of Appeals.
Wright and Utter, JJ., and Soule, J. Pro Tern., concur with Stafford, J.
Petition for rehearing denied August 1, 1974.