Washington Injury Lawyer Blog

We all know the absurdity of not being able to mention insurance at trial, but at least a majority of perspective jurors know that the defendant wouldn't be there if he didn't have insurance. Although I'm not sure that jurors realize that defense counsel is usually a staff employee of the insurance company.

But after listening to jurors during voir dire during my last trial, and talking with them after the verdict, they really think the plaintiff was the one who decided to "go to court!". This particular plaintiff went to court because the insurance company hardly offered anything to settle the case. Then after we proceed to arbitration and get a very reasonable award, the insurance company appeals the award and we're off to a jury trial. But we can't mention settlement offers or the lack of, or that there was an arbitration and it was the multi-billion dollar insurance company that decided to "go to court". I hear jurors that have had injury claims say, "but my claim was settled, we never went to court." Well, good for you! You got lucky apparently and dealt with a reasonable insurance company. But guess what, my client didn't. She doesn't want to be here, she wanted her case settled to. But the plaintiff turns out to be the bad guy for being ostensibly greedy and taking her case to court.....

We should be able to talk about the arbitration system, and how insurance companies have completely bastardized it and made it a joke. They don't care if they are subject to some extra attorney fees sometimes, they don't care how much experts cost, they don't care about any trial costs in general. It's David vs. Goliath, and we can't talk about Goliath. There has to be some way to address these issues, and before my next trial I'll be working on that solution. I'm not sure if it's through appropriate motions in limine or voir dire questions that don't cross, but maybe skirt some fine lines.

I've never opened up a blog post to comments, but think this is a good one to start with. If anyone has any ideas on how to handle these situations, please let me know.

From what I can tell, Washington's dog bite statute, RCW 16.08.040 hasn't been changed since 1941, and well, it shows. With the prevalence of severe dog attacks and bites increasing, it sure seems like our dog bite statute should be stronger and broader. Here's the Washington statute:

RCW 16.08.040
Dog Bites - Liability.

The owner of any dog which shall bite any person while such person is in or on a public place or lawfully in or on a private place including the property of the owner of such dog, shall be liable for such damages as may be suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness.

The Washington Dog Bite statute is written in terms of "The owner of any dog" which could be much broader. Case law has helped a bit by expanding this to include harborer or keeper of the dog but there's no reason this change shouldn't be codified. RCW 16.08.040 also limits liability under this statute to an actual dog "bite". Other states, including Arizona, have a much broader dog bite statute. The Arizona dog bite statute, ARS 11-1020 states:

11-1020. Dogs; liability

Injury to any person or damage to any property by a dog while at large shall be the full responsibility of the dog owner or person or persons responsible for the dog when such damages were inflicted.