Adkins v. Aluminum Co. of America

Decision Date09 June 1988
Docket NumberNo. 53309-1,53309-1
Citation756 P.2d 142
PartiesJerry ADKINS and Teresa Adkins, husband and wife, Appellants, v. ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA, a foreign corporation, Respondent.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

PEARSON, Chief Judge.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the opinion filed in Adkins v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 110 Wash.2d 128, 750 P.2d 1257 (1988) on March 3, 1988 is clarified as follows:

At 110 Wash.2d, page 143 [second sentence, 4th paragraph, in the first column of page 1266, of 750 P.2d], the following second sentence in the first full paragraph is deleted:

We conclude that in this case the improper argument presumptively affected the outcome of the trial and requires reversal.

and the following sentence is substituted in lieu thereof:

Because the inconsistency in the verdicts may well have been due to the improper argument in this case, and because the trial court failed to sustain Adkins' objection and give a prompt curative instruction, we conclude that the improper argument presumptively affected the outcome of the trial and requires reversal.

UTTER, ANDERSEN, DOLLIVER, GOODLOE and DURHAM, JJ., and CUNNINGHAM, J. Pro Tem., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
114 cases
  • Moses v. McWilliams
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • September 28, 1988
  • Mathis v. Ammons
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • December 20, 1996
    ...v. Meyer, 108 Wash.2d 220, 229, 737 P.2d 661 (1987); Adkins v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 110 Wash.2d 128, 144, 750 P.2d 1257, amended, 756 P.2d 142 (1988); Christen, 113 Wash.2d at 502, 780 P.2d 1307; Fraser v. Beutel, 56 Wash.App. 725, 739, 785 P.2d 470, review denied, 114 Wash.2d 1025, 794 P.2......
  • State v. McLean
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • October 22, 2013
    ...& Indus., 137 Wash.App. 592, 604, 154 P.3d 287 (2007) (citing Adkins v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 110 Wash.2d 128, 147, 750 P.2d 1257, 756 P.2d 142 (1988)). OSHA's construction of “unattended” has not been uniform, varies depending upon the context, and recognizes that a vehicle that is left run......
  • Atherton Condominium Apartment-Owners Ass'n Bd. of Directors v. Blume Development Co.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • November 1, 1990
    ...of care for the lesser common law standard of reasonableness. See Adkins v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 110 Wash.2d 128, 144, 750 P.2d 1257, 756 P.2d 142 (1988).14 Although Owners also cite to Washington Water Power Co. v. Graybar Elec. Co., 112 Wash.2d 847, 774 P.2d 1199, 779 P.2d 697 (1989), tha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT