§ 12.4 Factual Determinations Are Generally Reviewed Under The "Substantial Evidence" Standard O

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§12.4 FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS ARE GENERALLY REVIEWED UNDER THE "SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE" STANDARD OF REVIEW

Factual questions are decided in the trial court, either by the jury in a jury trial or by the judge in a bench trial. In cases tried to a jury, the parties have invoked a constitutional right to a jury trial, and courts will not redecide the jury's factual decisions if they are supported by substantial, properly admitted, evidence. Moreover, because the appellate court has not had the same opportunity as the trier of fact to observe the witnesses and evaluate their demeanor and credibility, the appellate court will not, based on its consideration of a cold written record, second-guess factual determinations that turn on credibility assessments.

Neither the jury nor the trial judge, however, is free to make factual findings without evidentiary support in the record, and parties may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support a judgment or verdict under CR 50 and CR 59. Appellate courts generally apply a "substantial evidence" standard of review to findings of fact, and they will not overturn findings of fact if supported by substantial evidence. See, e.g., Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards, Inc., 54 Wn.2d 570, 575, 343 P.2d 183 (1959). See also §12.7(10), below. Substantial evidence exists if "'the record contains evidence of sufficient quantity to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of the declared premise.'" King County...