•  
  •  
 

Washington Law Review

Abstract

P sued D for malpractice. After a verdict for P, the trial court granted D's motion for new trial, citing Rule 16, sub. 9 of the General Rules of the Superior Court, 34A Wn2d 117, i.e., "substantial justice has not been done." The court listed in the order granting the new trial the following reasons: insufficient evidence of negligence, prejudice of a juror, statements of P's counsel tending to prejudice the. jury against D, speed of the verdict, consideration of the entire record and proceedings, and appearance and demeanor of witnesses. P appealed. Held: reversed and judgment for P according to the verdict. Rule 16 requires that in all cases where a trial court grants a motion for new trial it shall in the order of granting the motion give definite reasons of law and facts for so doing. The roasons based on the record are insufficient to warrant a new trial and the reasons based upon the trial court's consideration of the proceedings and demeanor of witnesses do not show in what way D was prejudiced thereby. Mulka v. Keyes, 41 Wn. 2d 427, 249 P2d 972 (1952).

First Page

241

COinS