Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantnegligenceappealtrialmotionmalpractice
plaintiffdefendantnegligenceappealhearingtrialmotion

Related Cases

Dotson v. Bernstein, 207 P.3d 911
View Case »
Osborne v. Keeney, 399 S.W.3d 1
View Case »
Depue v. Flateau, 100 Minn. 299, 111 N.W. 1, 8 L.R.A.N.S. 485
View Case »
Helling v. Carey, 83 Wash.2d 514, 519 P.2d 981, 67 A.L.R.3d 175
View Case »
Dickinson v. Cosby, 17 Cal.App.5th 655, 225 Cal.Rptr.3d 430, 17 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,155, 2017 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,084
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Barnes v. Central Washington Deaconess Hospital, Inc., 5 Wash.App. 13, 485 P.2d 85

Facts

On July 5, 1967, Anthel E. Barnes was admitted to Central Washington Deaconess Hospital after an accident and died the following day. His wife, Jewell M. Barnes, filed a malpractice suit against the hospital and the physicians, alleging negligence. During the trial, a newspaper article discussing malpractice and rising medical costs was published, which led the plaintiff to request a mistrial, claiming it could influence the jury. The trial court denied the motion, and the jury ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants.

On July 5, 1967, Anthel E. Barnes was involved in an accident resulting in his admission to the Central Washington Deaconess Hospital in Wenatchee under the care of Drs. Edward F. Cadman, Burton Gowing and Lloyd H. Smith. The next day he died. Plaintiff Jewell M. Barnes brought this action on behalf of her husband's estate, alleging the death resulted from the negligence of the defendants' hospital and physicians.

Issue

Whether the publication of a newspaper article during the trial constituted grounds for a mistrial or a new trial.

Whether the publication of a newspaper article during the trial constituted grounds for a mistrial or a new trial.

Rule

The court held that the granting of a motion for mistrial or new trial is discretionary and that mere publication of an article not specifically referencing the case does not automatically warrant a new trial.

The granting of a motion for mistrial, as well as for a new trial, is discretionary with the trial court.

Analysis

The court analyzed the impact of the newspaper article, noting that it did not reference the ongoing trial and that the trial judge had the advantage of observing the witnesses and evidence firsthand. The court concluded that it could not assess the article's influence on the jury's decision and found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of the mistrial motion.

The trial judge had the benefit of seeing and hearing all of the witnesses and evidence, none of which is available to this court on appeal. Not having the same record, this court cannot weigh the impact of the article upon the ultimate result reached by the jury.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the publication of the article did not provide sufficient grounds for a new trial.

We are unable to reach this conclusion. The cases cited by plaintiff in its brief are cases where the news articles in question commented specifically on the case then on trial and are therefore distinguishable.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the defendants (the physicians and the hospital), as the jury found in their favor and the appellate court upheld the trial court's decisions.

The ultimate thrust of plaintiff's contention is that the mere publication of an article in a newspaper, making no specific reference to a case on trial but dealing with its general subject matter, which is read by jurors is ipso facto grounds for a new trial.

You must be