Fritsch v. J.J. Newberry's, Inc.

5 Citing cases

  1. Loeffelholz v. C.L.E.A.N

    119 Wn. App. 665 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 95 times
    Holding that the record does not show that the claims were so interrelated as to excuse segregation and the case embodied many claims and issues and an award of nearly half the total fees incurred represents too high a proportion to be reasonable

    State v. Balisok, 123 Wn.2d 114, 118, 866 P.2d 631 (1994); State v. Gobin, 73 Wn.2d 206, 211-12, 437 P.2d 389 (1968); Richards, 59 Wn. App. at 270.Adkins v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 110 Wn.2d 128, 137, 750 P.2d 1257 (1988); Richards, 59 Wn. App. at 271-72; State v. Briggs, 55 Wn. App. 44, 55-56, 60, 776 P.2d 1347 (1989); Fritsch v. J.J. Newberry's, Inc., 43 Wn. App. 904, 907, 720 P.2d 845, review denied, 107 Wn.2d 1006 (1986).State v. Ng, 110 Wn.2d 32, 43, 750 P.2d 632 (1988); Richards, 59 Wn. App. at 272.

  2. Long v. Tug

    No. 70529-6-I (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    The question remains: did the juror in this case bring in extrinsic evidence of law? Clausing does not help to answer that question. The fourth case is Fritsch v. J.J. Newberry's. Inc.. 43 Wn.App. 904, 720 P.2d 845, review denied, 107 Wn.2d 1006 (1986). In Fritsch. a juror in a personal injury case told the other jurors that after he injured his foot and was unable to jog for a month, an attorney told him a reasonable sum for his pain and suffering was $1,000.

  3. In re Det. of Reimer

    11 Wn. App. 2d 1028 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019)

    The decision to deny a new trial under CR 59 will not be reversed absent a strong showing of abuse of discretion.Fritsch v. J.J. Newberry's, Inc., 43 Wn.App. 904, 905, 720 P.2d 845 (1986). And motions for reconsideration under CR 59 are best left to the sound discretion of the trial court and are also not reversed absent a showing of manifest abuse of discretion.

  4. Richards v. Overlake Hospital

    59 Wn. App. 266 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 85 times
    Finding no misconduct when jurors applied specialized medical knowledge during deliberations because that information was disclosed during voir dire

    The interpretation of the evidence interjected by Geisler may well be outside the realm of a typical juror's general life experience and would not usually be introduced into the jury's deliberations. See Halverson, 82 Wn.2d at 752; see also Fritsch v. J.J. Newberry's, Inc., 43 Wn. App. 904, 907, 720 P.2d 845, review denied, 107 Wn.2d 1006 (1986). However, in this case, on voir dire juror Geisler's background was fully disclosed and the Richards did not remove her from the jury.

  5. State v. Briggs

    55 Wn. App. 44 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 67 times
    Granting new trial where juror's personal knowledge of speech impediments constituted extrinsic evidence not within realm of typical juror's life experience

    This is evidence outside the realm of a typical juror's general life experience and therefore should not have been introduced into the jury's deliberations. Halverson, at 752 (new trial ordered where juror misconduct consisted of telling fellow jurors the salaries of airline pilots and surveyors in an action wherein the plaintiff sought lost wages and had shown an inclination to enter those professions but had failed to introduce evidence regarding salaries in those professions); see also Fritsch v. J.J. Newberry's, Inc., 43 Wn. App. 904, 907, 720 P.2d 845 (1986) (juror's extraneous remarks regarding the value of damages was in the nature of expert testimony that should have been subject to cross examination and was thus prejudicial). Similarly, appellant was prejudiced by juror White's use of his particular knowledge about this crucial issue during the jury's deliberations.