§59.7 Significant Authorities

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§59.7 SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITIES

This section addresses case law on CR 59, in addition to that cited above.

(1)Timing

A trial court may not extend the 10-day deadline for filing a motion under CR59(b). CR 6(b) ; Schaefco, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Comm'n, 121 Wn.2d 366, 367-68, 849 P.2d 1225 (1993); Mete v. Sarandos, 91 Wn.App. 357, 957 P.2d 795 (1998) (time to file begins to run upon entry of the judgment, regardless of party's actual notice); Kaech v. Lewis Cnty. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 106 Wn.App. 260, 268, 23 P.3d 529 (2001), review denied, 145 Wn.2d 1020 (2002) (time to file will not be extended by joining a CR 50 motion, which has no 10-day limit).

(2)Standard of decision

A motion for new trial is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. McCoy v. Kent Nursery, Inc., 163 Wn.App. 744, 757-58, 260 P.3d 967 (2011), review denied, 173 Wn.2d 1029 (2012);State v. Higgins, 75 Wn.2d 110, 115, 449 P.2d 393 (1969).

A stronger showing of abuse of discretion is required to set aside an order granting a new trial than to set aside an order denying a new trial. Palmer v. Jensen, 132 Wn.2d 193, 197, 937 P.2d 597 (1997).

If the motion presents only issues of law, the trial court has no discretion, and the rulings are subject to appellate review. Allyn v. Boe, 87 Wn.App. 722, 729, 943 P.2d 364 (1997), review denied, 134 Wn.2d 1020; Detrick v. Garretson Packing Co., 73 Wn.2d 804, 812-13, 440 P.2d 834 (1968).

Atrial court's ruling as to the inadequacy or excessiveness of damages will be set aside only for a manifest abuse of discretion. Balandzich v. Demeroto, 10 Wn.App. 718, 726, 519 P.2d 994, review denied, 84 Wn.2d 1001 (1974).

If the jury's verdict is within the range of the credible evidence, the trial court has no discretion to order additur or remittitur. Hendrickson v. Konopaski, 14 Wn.App. 390, 394-95, 541P.2d1001 (1975).

(3)Grounds for new trial

The cumulative effect of multiple errors may justify a new trial when the individual errors would not. Storey v. Storey, 21 Wn.App. 370, 375, 585 P.2d 183 (1978), review denied, 91 Wn.2d 1017 (1979).

Affidavits of jurors may be considered to establish a juror's acts constituting misconduct but not to prove matters that "inhere in the verdict" or to probe the jury's mental process. McCoy, 163 Wn.App. at 765-66; Gardner v. Malone, 60 Wn.2d 836, 376 P.2d 651 (1962), amended, 379 P.2d 918 (1963).

If the court has any doubt that juror misconduct affected the outcome...