Scott Maziar, Respondent/cross-app v. Department Of Corrections, Appellant/cross-respondent ( 2014 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
SCOTT WALTER MAZIAR,
DIVISION ONE
Respondent/Cross-
Appellant, No. 71068-1-
m
o
o
PUBLISHED OPINION l\3
_.*>—:
-ftr-Of—
WASHINGTON STATE
3C
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS O
a;r-
and the STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Appellant/Cross-
Respondent. FILED: March 24, 2014
Dwyer, J. — Generally, when a plaintiff brings a maritime claim in state
court pursuant to the "saving to suitors" clause,1 article I, section 21 ofthe
Washington Constitution2 establishes the parties' rights to a jury trial. That
constitutional provision, however, does not grant such a right to the State of
Washington, the party against whom the claim at issue in this case was asserted.
Plaintiff Scott Maziar initially requested a jury trial. He later moved to
strike his jury request, contending that the jury trial right was inapplicable to his
cause of action. The State opposed this motion, arguing that Maziar was wrong
1"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States,
of. Any civil case ofadmiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving tosuitors in all cases all other
remedies to which they are otherwise entitled." 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1).
2"The right oftrial by jury shall remain inviolate, but the legislature may provide for a jury
of any number less than twelve in courts not of record, and for a verdict by nine or more jurors in
civil cases in any court of record, and for waiving of the jury in civil cases where the consent of
the parties interested is given thereto."
No. 71068-1-1/2
regarding the application of a state law jury right to his maritime cause of action.
The State further alleged that it possessed the right to a jury trial in this matter,
premising its assertion on article I, section 21 and RCW 4.40.060 and 4.44.090.3
Although the State was correct that article I, section 21 applied to Maziar's cause
of action, conferring upon him such a right, it was incorrect in contending that
either the state constitution or the cited statutes confer upon it such a right.
Because the State did not cite to the trial court applicable authority establishing
its right to a jury trial in this matter, the trial court did not err by striking the jury
upon Maziar's request.
With regard to further issues raised herein, we hold that the trial court did
not err either by declining to award Maziar prejudgment interest on his damages
recovery or by finding that Maziar failed to mitigate his damages. Accordingly,
we affirm the judgment.
I
Maziar was employed by the State Department of Corrections (DOC) as a
correctional officer at the McNeil Island Corrections Center. On January 16,
2003, at approximately 10:40 p.m., after having finished his shift, Maziar boarded
the DOC ferry from McNeil Island to Steilacoom. Maziar sat down on a bench,
put his feet up on a loose chair, and closed his eyes. Thereafter, the captain of
the ferry pulled the chair out from under Maziar's feet, causing Maziar to fall off
the bench. Maziar sustained injuries to his back, left ankle, knee, and left
shoulder.
3 These statutes are set forth and discussed in section II, subsection D, infra.
No. 71068-1-1/3
Maziar was unable to return to work as a correctional officer. From March
2003 through August 2003, Maziar worked in DOC's records division. In
November 2003, the State offered Maziar a position in the mailroom at McNeil
Island. Maziar's physician, Dr. Stephen Settle, did not believe that Maziar could
perform that job due to his mistaken belief that ferry transportation required
passengers to wear seatbelts. With respect to the mailroom position itself, Dr.
Settle opined that "[t]he actual job duties appear appropriate." Nonetheless,
Maziar believed that he would not have been able to perform the mailroom job.
Maziar stated that he would not have taken the mailroom position because,
[l]t's a permanent position that was only three or four people.
There was heavy lifting in that job. Iwatched them as I sat down
there as an officer. They do lift very large bags. There is tedious
amounts of sorting. The three people that I saw there had been
there over 20 years, and there were no positions that I could see
that were permanent at any time while I worked there at McNeil
Island. I didn't see any permanency there.
On June 30, 2005, Maziar filed a general maritime negligence claim
against DOC, seeking compensation for the injuries he sustained when the ferry
captain removed the chair. At that time, Maziar requested that his case be tried
to a jury. On February 22, 2008, the trial court granted a motion for summary
judgment brought by DOC, dismissing the lawsuit. Maziar appealed, and on
August 25, 2009, Division Two reversed the trial court's ruling. Maziar v. Dep't of
Corr., 151 Wash. App. 850, 216 P.3d 430 (2009) (Maziar I).4
4 In Maziar I, Division Two addressed whether the Industrial Insurance Act, Title 51 RCW,
precluded Maziar's claim and whether his claim was barred by sovereign immunity. 151 Wn.
App. at 852. The court held in Maziar's favor on both issues, and remanded the case for trial.
Maziar I. 151 Wash. App. at 860-61.
No. 71068-1-1/4
On September 15, 2011, Maziar, relying on the Washington Supreme
Court's recent opinion in Endicottv. Icicle Seafoods, Inc., 167 Wash. 2d 873, 224
P.3d 761 (2010), moved to strike the jury request. DOC opposed the motion.
The trial court granted the motion and the parties tried the case to the bench.
The trial court found in favor of Maziar, and awarded $572,251.50 for pain
and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. However, the trial court found that
Maziar had failed to mitigate his damages because "he did not attempt" the
mailroom position "even for 10 or 15 minutes." Hence, the trial court awarded
lost wages for only the periods of January to February 2003 and September to
November 2003, for a total of $12,487.50. In total, the trial court awarded to
Maziar $585,0005 in damages. The trial court declined to award prejudgment
interest on the damage amount.
DOC appeals from the judgment, assigning errorto the trial court's order
granting the motion to strike the jury. Maziar cross-appeals, challenging both the
trial court's ruling that he failed to mitigate his damages and its decision not to
award prejudgment interest.
II
DOC contends that the trial court erred by striking the jury and conducting
a bench trial on Maziar's claim. This is so, it asserts, because the Washington
Constitution and two state statutes guarantee to it the right to trial by jury in civil
5The judgment entered by the trial court states that the total principal judgment amount is
$585,000. We are unaware ofthe source ofthe $261 not incorporated in the awards for lost
wages and pain and suffering. Nevertheless, neither party assigns error to the trial court's
calculation ofdamages. We thus do not disturb the trial court's calculation of Maziar's damages,
as set forth in the judgment.
-4-
No. 71068-1-1/5
actions, including maritime cases. We agree that the right to a jury trial generally
applies to maritime actions. We do not agree that DOC established that it
possesses such a right.
A
Maritime causes of action are exclusively within the realm of federal law.
Maziar I. 151 Wash. App. at 854. Nonetheless, an in personam maritime claim may
be brought in state court pursuant to the "saving to suitors" clause of 28 U.S.C. §
1333(1). Lewis v. Lewis &Clark Marine, Inc.. 531 U.S. 438, 445, 121 S. Ct. 993,
148 L. Ed. 2d 931 (2001). This statute states, in relevant part, "The district courts
shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of: (1) Any
civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all
other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled." 28 U.S.C. § 1333.
Generally, state courts deciding a case brought pursuant to the "saving to
suitors" clause must apply substantive federal maritime law. Endicott, 167 Wash. 2d
at 879. However,
a state court may "'adopt such remedies, and . . . attach to them
such incidents, as it sees fit' so long as it does not attempt to make
changes in the 'substantive maritime law.'" Madruaa v. Superior
Court of Cal.. County of San Diego, 346 U.S. 556, 561 [74 S. Ct.
298, 301, 98 L. Ed. 290] (1954) (quoting Red Cross Line fv. Atlantic
Fruit Co.. 264 U.S. 109,] 124 [44 S. Ct. 274, 68 L. Ed. 582 (1924)]).
That proviso is violated when the state remedy "works material
prejudice to the characteristic features of the general maritime law
or interferes with the proper harmony and uniformity of that law in
its international and interstate relations." Southern Pacific Co. v.
Jensen, 244 U.S. 205, 216 [37 S. Ct. 524, 61 L. Ed. 1086] (1917).
Am. Dredging Co. v. Miller. 510 U.S. 443, 447, 114S. Ct. 981, 127 L. Ed. 2d 285
(1994).
-5-
No. 71068-1-1/6
Although, historically, jury trials were not available in admiralty suits,
nothing in federal maritime law forbids the use of a jury. Fitzgerald v. U.S. Lines
Co., 374 U.S.16, 20, 83 S. Ct. 1646, 10 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1963). Instead, the
possibility of trial by jury is one of the "remedies" saved to suitors by 28 U.S.C. §
1333.6 Lewis, 531 U.S. at 454-55 ("Trial by jury is an obvious, but not exclusive,
example of the remedies available to suitors."). As such, whether a party
possesses the right to trial by jury in a maritime action is a question of state law.
Linton v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.. 964 F.2d 1480, 1487 (5th Cir. 1992).
Thus, whether the parties in this case have the right to a jury trial is a question to
be answered by application of Washington law.
Pursuant to the Washington Constitution, the right to a jury trial generally
exists for common law actions but not for equitable actions. Bird v. Best
Plumbing Grp.. LLC, 175 Wash. 2d 756, 769, 287 P.3d 551 (2012). However,
maritime actions are neither legal nor equitable. Waring v. Clarke, 46 U.S. 441,
460, 5 How. 441, 12 L Ed. 226 (1847); Phelps v. The City of Panama, 1
Wash.Terr. 518, 536 (1877) ("The constitution recognizes, in the language it
employs, a triple distribution ofjurisdiction into law, equity and admiralty. A suit
in one of these jurisdictions is not a suit in another." (citation omitted)).
Accordingly, we undertake a historical inquiry to determine whether there is a
constitutional right to a jury in a maritime suit:
[Washington courts] have long interpreted article I, section 21 as
guaranteeing those rights to trial by jury that existed at the time of
6"Suitors" includes both the plaintiff and the defendant. Waring v. Clarke, 46 U.S. 441,
461, 5 How. 441, 12 L. Ed. 226 (1847).
-6-
No. 71068-1-1/7
the constitution's adoption in 1889. Brown v. Safeway Stores. Inc.,
94 Wash. 2d 359, 365, 617 P.2d 704 (1980). Under this historical
approach, "the court examines (1) whether the cause of action is
one to which the right to a jury trial applied in 1889, and (2) the
scope of the right to a jury trial." Nielson v. Spanawav Gen. Med.
Clinic. Inc.. 135 Wash. 2d 255, 266, 956 P.2d 312 (1998).
Bird, 175 Wash. 2d at 768-69.
In 1889, admiralty jurisdiction was governed by the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Chappell v. Bradshaw, 128 U.S. 132, 134, 9 S. Ct. 40, 32 L. Ed. 369 (1888).
The Act stated, in relevant part, "[T]he district courts shall have . .. exclusive
original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction .. .
saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the
common law is competent to give it." Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, § 9, 1 Stat.
73, 76-77 (footnote omitted). Although a maritime suit brought in state court was
not (and is not) a common law action, the "saving to suitors" clause provided
plaintiffs with all remedies that would otherwise be available in a common law
action. Knapp. Stout & Co. Co. v. McCaffrey. 177 U.S. 638, 644, 20 S. Ct. 824,
44 L Ed. 921 (1900): see also The Moses Taylor. 71 U.S. 411,431, 18 L Ed.
397, 4 Wall. 411 (1866) ("It is not a remedy in the common-law courts which is
saved, but a common-law remedy."). "Remedy" was defined at the time as "[t]he
means employed to enforce a right or redress an injury." Bouvier's Law
Dictionary 2870 (8th ed. 1914). In 1889, a jury trial was one of the "means
employed to enforce a right or redress an injury" in common law actions in the
Washington Territory. Dacres v. Or. Rv. &Navigation Co.. 1 Wash. 525, 529, 20
P. 601 (1889). Thus, in 1889, parties in maritime actions had the right to a jury
No. 71068-1-1/8
trial in suits brought pursuant to the "saving to suitors" clause. Therefore, upon
statehood, article I, section 21 of the Washington Constitution continued to
guarantee that right.
This conclusion is consistent with federal law. Although the federal
constitution's Seventh Amendment does not apply to state court proceedings, the
Washington Supreme Court has found Seventh Amendment jurisprudence to
provide insight into the state jury trial guarantee. See e.g., Nielson v. Spanaway
Gen. Med. Clinic, Inc., 135 Wash. 2d 255, 267-68, 956 P.2d 312 (1998); Sofie v.
Fibreboard Corp., 112 Wash. 2d 636, 647, 771 P.2d 711, 780 P.2d 260 (1989).
Pursuant to federal court jurisprudence, the "saving to suitors" clause allows a
plaintiff to sue in diversity, instead of admiralty, so long as the statutory
requirements for so doing are met.7 Romero v. Int'l Terminal Operating Co.. 358
U.S. 354, 362, 79 S. Ct. 468, 3 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1959). The United States
Supreme Court has held that when a plaintiff brings a maritime claim under
diversity jurisdiction, the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial attaches. Atl. &
Gulf Stevedores. Inc. v. Ellerman Lines. Ltd.. 369 U.S. 355, 360, 82 S. Ct. 780, 7
7The statute establishing federal diversity jurisdiction reads, in relevant part, as follows:
The district courts shall have originaljurisdiction of all civil actions where the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest
and costs, and is between—
(1) citizens of different States;
(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except
that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection
of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign
state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States
and are domiciled in the same State;
(3) citizensof different States and in which citizensor subjects of a
foreign state are additional parties; and
(4) a foreign state, defined in section 1603(a) of this title, as plaintiff and
citizens of a State or of different States.
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
-8-
No. 71068-1-1/9
L.Ed.2d 798 (1962). As the Supreme Court of Louisiana has articulated, "There
simply is no apparent conceptual difference between an admiralty In personam
claim brought under the saving to suitors clause as an ordinary civil action in
federal court and one brought under the same clause as an ordinary civil action
in state court." Lavergne v. W. Co. of N. Am.. Inc.. 371 So. 2d 807, 810 (La.
1979). Thus, federal law supports the conclusion that the right to a jury trial is
available in maritime actions brought in state court pursuant to the "saving to
suitors" clause.
B
Maziar relies extensively on the Phelps decision for his assertion that
there is no right to a jury trial in maritime actions, but that opinion does not
compel the result he envisions.8 In Phelps, the Supreme Court of the
Washington Territory declared that "[n]either in the court below nor in this court,
could [the plaintiff's admiralty suit] be tried by a jury." 1 Wash.Terr. at 536.
However, the plaintiffs in Phelps did not bring their action pursuant to the "saving
to suitors" clause. Rather, the territorial trial court heard the case in the same
manner as would a federal district court sitting in admiralty.
Some history of the jurisdiction exercised by Washington's territorial courts
is necessary to explain why this was so. In 1828, the United States Supreme
Court was called upon to answer the question of whether a territorial court could
8Maziar also relies heavily on footnote 3 in Endicott for his assertion that there is no right
to a jury trial in maritime actions. However, in that footnote, the court actually states that it would
not decide the question, because the issue was not adequately briefed by the parties. Endicott,
167Wn.2dat886n.3.
No. 71068-1-1/10
exercise jurisdiction over admiralty cases. Am. Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton,
26 U.S. 511, 7 L. Ed. 242 (1828). In an opinion by Chief Justice John Marshall,
the Court held that a territorial court had jurisdiction over admiralty claims. 356
Bales of Cotton. 26 U.S. at 546. The Court noted that the territorial courts, while
not established as Article III courts, did possess such subject matter jurisdiction
as was conferred by Congress. 356 Bales of Cotton, 26 U.S. at 546. As Chief
Justice Marshall explained, "Although admiralty jurisdiction can be exercised in
the states in those Courts, only, which are established in pursuance of the 3d
article of the Constitution; the same limitation does not extend to the territories."
356 Bales of Cotton, 26 U.S. at 546.
Congress's power over territories ofthe United States is established in
Article IV, section 3, of the United States Constitution, which states, in relevant
part, "The congress shall have power to dispose ofand make all needful rules
and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United
States." In 1853, Congress exercised this power in creating the territory of
Washington. In "An Act to Establish the Territorial Government of Washington,"
otherwise known as the Organic Act, Congress created the territorial judiciary,
vesting its power in "a supreme court, district courts, probate courts, and in
justices of the peace." Organic Act, ch. 90, § 9, 10 Stat. 172 (1853). Congress
therein conferred the jurisdiction of the courts as follows:
[E]ach ofthe said district courts shall have and exercise the same
jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution of the United
States and the laws of said Territory, as is vested in the circuit and
district courts of the United States; writs of error and appeal in all
such cases shall be made to the supreme court of said Territory the
-10-
No. 71068-1-1/11
same as in other cases. Writs of error, and appeals from the final
decision of said supreme court, shall be allowed and may be taken
to the supreme court of the United States in the same manner as
from the circuit courts of the United States.
Organic Act, ch. 90, § 9, 10 Stat. 172. As the grant of jurisdiction decreed it to be
the same as that exercised by Article III courts, a territorial court in Washington
operated not only as would a state court, but also as would a federal court. See
Barbara Bintliff, A Jurisdictional History of the Colorado Courts, 65 U. Colo. L.
Rev. 577, 588-89 (1994) ("In addition to being territorial courts, with jurisdiction
like that of state courts, the supreme and district courts of Colorado Territory also
served as the federal courts for the territory. Their jurisdiction was 'the same
jurisdiction, in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United
States, as is vested in the circuit and district courts of the United States.'"
(quoting Organic Act, ch. 59, § 9, 12 Stat. 172 (1861))).
In Phelps, the territorial Supreme Court held that it and the trial court were
acting with the jurisdictional authority offederal courts in deciding that dispute. In
determining whether it had jurisdiction over admiralty claims, the court
recognized that there were two possible bases for its jurisdiction:
1. . . . [A]dmiralty and maritime law remains a law of the Territory, and
a case arising under it properly arises under the laws of the Territory.
[Or],
2. . . . [A]dmiralty and maritime law is now operative within the Territory
as a law of the United States, and a case arising under it arises under
the laws of the United States.
Phelps. 1 Wash.Terr. at 529. The court determined the second basis to be the
correct one for admiralty cases. Phelps. 1 Wash.Terr. at 529. Specifically, the
11 -
No. 71068-1-1/12
court held, "All cases here, therefore, which now arise under admiralty, or
maritime law, are correctly to be styled cases arising under the laws of the United
States. Of all such cases, the Territorial, District and Supreme courts have
undoubted jurisdiction." Phelps, 1 Wash.Terr. at 529.
The trial court in Phelps was sitting not as a common law state court, but
as a federal court in admiralty. Thus, it had no need to invoke the "saving to
suitors" clause. As the trial court was exercising the equivalent of admiralty
jurisdiction,9 the Territorial Supreme Court was correct in its conclusion that the
parties therein had no right to a jury trial. See Waring. 46 U.S. at 460 (Seventh
Amendment does not apply to admiralty actions). The Pierce County Superior
Court in this case, however, was not exercising federal admiralty jurisdiction.10
Rather, it was exercising the authority conferred upon it by the "saving to suitors"
clause. Therefore, contrary to Maziar's urgings, the Phelps decision does not
support the position he asserts.
As the "saving to suitors" clause contemplates that the parties have
access to common law remedies, and the right to a jury trial was a common law
9What today would be jurisdiction for claims brought pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 9(h). This rule states:
(1) How Designated. If a claim for relief is within the admiralty or maritime
jurisdiction and also within the court's subject-matter jurisdiction on some
other ground, the pleading may designate the claim as an admiralty or
maritime claim for purposes of Rules 14(c), 38(e), and 82 and the
Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset
Forfeiture Actions. A claim cognizable only in the admiralty or maritime
jurisdiction is an admiralty or maritime claim for those purposes, whether
or not so designated.
(2) Designation for Appeal. A case that includes an admiralty or maritime
claim within this subdivision (h) is an admiralty case within 28 U.S.C. §
1292(a)(3).
10 Norcould it. "[A] true 'admiralty' claim is never cognizable in state court." Linton. 964
F.2d at 1487.
-12-
No. 71068-1-1/13
remedy recognized in the Washington Territory in 1889, the constitutional right to
a jury trial set forth in article I, section 21 is generally available to the parties in a
maritime action brought in superior court.
C
The discussion in the preceding section does not resolve the issue
presented, however. Establishing that Maziar, contrary to his belief, was entitled
to a jury's resolution of his claim does not end our inquiry. Maziar, of course,
was free to choose to not avail himself of the jury trial opportunity. The trial court
erred in striking the jury, DOC contends, because it had a right to a jury trial and
it objected to Maziar's request.
Both in the trial court and in its briefing on appeal, DOC contended that its
right to a jury trial is guaranteed by article I, section 21 of the Washington
Constitution and two nineteenth century statutes. We examine the constitutional
question first.
The Washington Constitution provides that,
The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate, but the legislature
may provide for a jury of any number less than twelve in courts not
of record, and for a verdict by nine or more jurors in civil cases in
any court of record, and for waiving of the jury in civil cases where
the consent of the parties interested is given thereto.
Const, art. I, §21.
Article I of the Washington Constitution is entitled "Declaration of Rights."
Section 21, guaranteeing the right oftrial by jury, is a part ofthis Declaration. "In
many states, including Washington, the Declaration of Rights is a source of
individual protection that is the equal ofthe federal [Bill of Rights]. Not merely a
-13-
No. 71068-1-1/14
restatement of its national counterpart, Washington's Declaration of Rights
contains unique and additional protections of individual rights." Robert F. Utter
& Hugh D. Spitzer, The Washington State Constitution: A Reference Guide
15 (2002) (emphasis added). In fact, "[t]he Washington Declaration of Rights is
the primary guarantor of the rights of Washingtonians." Robert F. Utter, Freedom
and Diversity in a Federal System: Perspectives on State Constitutions and the
Washington Declaration of Rights, 7 U. Puget Sound L. Rev. 491, 524 (1984).
The Declaration addresses the "rights of a Washington citizen," not the rights of
the State. Utter, supra, at 524.
Moreover, the Declaration of Rights itself provides that the state
government is "established to protect and maintain individual rights." Const, art.
I, § 1 (emphasis added). As Justice Utter noted, "state constitutions were
originally intended as the primary devices to protect individual rights." Utter &
Spitzer, supra, at 3. "[T]he fundamental purpose of our state's constitution" is "to
protect and maintain individual rights." Utter, supra, at 507. Accordingly, the
Washington Constitution delineates a set of limitations on state power, not a set
of powers or rights granted to the State. Utter &Spitzer, supra, at 2. It would
require a strained reading of our Declaration of Rights to find that one of its
provisions grants to the State any of the rights enumerated therein. Accordingly,
article I, section 21 of the Washington Constitution does not grant the State the
right to a jury trial.
Following oral argument in this court, DOC submitted an uninvited
pleading, purportedly in response to a question from the panel concerning
-14-
No. 71068-1-1/15
whether our Supreme Court has ever held that any section of the Declaration of
Rights granted a right to the State.11 In this postargument filing, DOC cited to
article I, section 16 of the state constitution and a Division Three opinion, Dep't of
Natural Res, v. Littleiohn Logging. Inc.. 60 Wash. App. 671, 806 P.2d 779 (1991),
for the proposition that the State had been granted rights by the Declaration of
Rights. In fact, neither citation supports DOC's assertion.
DOC's citation to, and reliance upon, article I, section 16 is off the mark.
This provision reads:
Private property shall not be taken for private use, except for
private ways of necessity, and for drains, flumes, or ditches on or
across the lands of others for agricultural, domestic, or sanitary
purposes. No private property shall be taken or damaged for public
or private use without just compensation having been first made, or
11 Maziar timely moved to strike DOC's pleading, contending that it consisted of
impermissible argument in violation ofRAP 10.1(h) and 10.8 and was essentially an unsolicited
supplemental brief. Maziar's contention is well taken. To the extent that DOC included argument
in its submittal, Maziar's motion is granted.
However, with respect to DOC's citations to article I, section 16 and Dep't of Natural Res,
v. Littleiohn Logging. Inc.. 60 Wash. App. 671, 806 P.2d 779 (1991), Maziar's motion is denied.
These two citations are at least tangentially related to the court's question at oral argument.
With respect to all otherauthorities cited by DOC in its late-filed pleading, Maziar's
motion is granted. DOC citesto these authorities in an apparent effort to advance a new theory
of its case. Neither these authorities nor this theory (which does not raise a constitutional
question) were presented to the trial court (either in briefing or in oral argument), included in
DOC's opening appellate brief, included in DOC's reply brief, or mentioned at oral argument. In a
civil case, under circumstances in which a constitutional right is not at issue, an appellant cannot
seek reversal of a trial court decision based on a legal theory not presented to the trial court.
Fuouav. Fugua. 88Wn.2d 100, 105, 558 P.2d 801 (1977). A corollary of this rule is that an
appellant must include all theories upon which reversal is sought (accompanied by proper
argument and citations to authority) in its opening brief on appeal. Dickson v. U.S. Fid. &Guar.
Co., 77 Wash. 2d 785, 787, 466 P.2d 515 (1970); In re Estates of Foster. 165 Wash. App. 33, 56, 268
P.3d 945 (2011). Alegal theory that is raised for the first time in a reply brief is raised too late to
warrant consideration. Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Boslev, 118 Wash. 2d 801, 809, 828 P.2d
549 (1992); Dvkstra v. County ofSkagit. 97Wn. App. 670, 676, 985 P.2d 424 (1999). The same
rule applies to legal theories raised by an appellant for the first time at oral argument in this court.
State v. Johnson. 119 Wash. 2d 167, 170, 829 P.2d 1082 (1992). Obviously, a legal theory
advanced by an appellant for the first time after oral argument completely deprives the
respondent of any opportunity to defend the trial court's decisions, and comes too late to warrant
consideration by the appellate court. Rafel Law Grp. PLLC v. Defoor, 176 Wash. App. 210, 225,
308 P.3d 767 (2013V review denied, 179Wn.2d 1011 (2014).
-15-
No. 71068-1-1/16
paid into court for the owner, and no right-of-way shall be
appropriated to the use of any corporation other than municipal until
full compensation therefor be first made in money, or ascertained
and paid into court for the owner, irrespective of any benefit from
any improvement proposed by such corporation, which
compensation shall be ascertained by a jury, unless a jury be
waived, as in other civil cases in courts of record, in the manner
prescribed by law. Whenever an attempt is made to take private
property for a use alleged to be public, the question whether the
contemplated use be really public shall be a judicial question, and
determined as such, without regard to any legislative assertion that
the use is public: Provided, That the taking of private property by
the state for land reclamation and settlement purposes is hereby
declared to be for public use.
Const, art. I, § 16.
Contrary to DOC's apparent belief, this provision did not grant the State
the power of eminent domain. To the contrary, it gives individuals rights against
the State's exercise of that power. Indeed, upon statehood, the State of
Washington possessed the power of eminent domain independent of any
express grant from any source:
The power of eminent domain is inherent in sovereignty and
does not depend for its existence on a specific grant in the
constitution. The provisions found in a state constitution do not by
implication grant the power to the government of a state, but limit a
power which otherwise would be without limit.
State ex rel. Eastvold v. Yelle, 46 Wash. 2d 166, 168, 279 P.2d 645 (1955)
(emphasis added) (citing State ex rel. Eastvold v. Superior Court, 44 Wash. 2d 607,
609, 269 P.2d 560 (1954)); accord State v. King County, 74 Wash. 2d 673, 675, 446
P.2d 193 (1968) ("The power of eminent domain is an attribute of sovereignty; it
is an inherent power of the state.").
16
No. 71068-1-1/17
This view is in accord with similar pronouncements from the courts of
sister states. Over 100 years ago, the Idaho Supreme Court declared, "When
Idaho became a state, it at once necessarily assumed the power of eminent
domain, one of the inalienable rights of sovereignty; and that right, we take it,
may be exercised over all property within its jurisdiction." Hollister v. State, 9
Idaho 8, 71 P. 541, 543 (1903). overruled in part on other grounds bv Smith v.
State. 93 Idaho 795, 473 P.2d 937 (1970). More recently, the Alabama Supreme
Court held, "The power of eminent domain does not originate in Article I, § 23 [of
the Alabama Constitution]. Instead, it is a power inherent in every sovereign
state. Section 23 merely places certain limits on the exercise of the power of
eminent domain." Gober v. Stubbs. 682 So. 2d 430, 433 (Ala. 1996). Indeed, it is
widely accepted that the power of eminent domain is not conferred by
constitution or statute, but rather is an inherent attribute of state sovereignty.
See Svs. Components Corp. v. Fla. Dep't of Transp.. 14 So. 3d 967, 975 (Fla.
2009); Mayor &Citv Council of Baltimore Citv v. Valsamaki, 397 Md. 222, 241,
916 A.2d 324 (2007); R.I. Econ. Dev. Corp. v. The Parking Co., LP, 892 A.2d 87,
96 (R.I. 2006); Dep't ofTransp. v. M.M. Fowler. Inc.. 361 N.C. 1, 5, 637 S.E.2d
885 (2006); Norwood v. Hornev. 110 Ohio St. 3d 353, 363-64, 853 N.E.2d 1115
(2006); State bv Dep't of Natural Res, v. Cooper, 152W.Va. 309, 312, 162
S.E.2d 281 (1968); State Highway Dep't v. Smith, 219 Ga. 800, 803, 136 S.E.2d
334 (1964); People ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Works v. Chevalier. 52 Cal. 2d 299, 304,
340 P.2d 598 (1959); State, bv Burnguist v. Flach. 213 Minn. 353, 356, 6 N.W.2d
805 (1942); Liddick v. Citv of Council Bluffs, 232 Iowa 197, 215, 5 N.W.2d 361
-17-
No. 71068-1-1/18
(1942); Phila. Clay Co. v. York Clay Co.. 241 Pa. 305, 310, 88 A. 487 (1913); Bd.
of Water Comm'rs of Citv of Norwich v. Johnson, 84 A. 727, 731 (Conn. 1912);
People v. Adirondack Rv. Co., 160 N.Y. 225, 237, 54 N.E. 689 (1899), affd, 176
U.S. 335, 20 S. Ct. 460, 44 L. Ed. 492 (1900); Brown v. Beattv, 1857 WL 4130, at
*9 (Miss.Err. &App.); In re State. 325 S.W.3d 848, 858 (Tex.App.-Austin 2010);
Citv of Sunland Park v. Santa Teresa Servs. Co.. 134 N.M. 243, 252, 75 P.3d
843 (N.M.App. 2003); County Highway Comm'n of Rutherford County v. Smith,
61 Tenn.App. 292, 297-98, 454 S.W.2d 124 (1969); State bv State Highway
Comm'r v. Union County Park Comm'n, 89 N.J.Super. 202, 211,214 A.2d 446
(1965).
Contrary to DOC's present assertion, "[t]he sole purpose of [article I,
section 16] is to define the limitations placed upon the inherent power of a
governing body in dealing with the governed in this regard." Arnold v. Melani, 75
Wash. 2d 143, 151, 449 P.2d 800, 450 P.2d 815 (1968) (emphasis added).
Properly understood, article I, section 16 grants rights to Washington citizens in
order to ameliorate the harshness of the State's unfettered power of eminent
domain. It does not grant rights to the State.
DOC's citation to the Littleiohn Logging decision is similarly unavailing.
The question now before us was not addressed in that case. Rather, in Littleiohn
Logging, Division Three held that because "DNR's action was legal in nature,"
"the parties had a right to a jury trial." 60 Wash. App. at 674. From the decision it
is clear that each party in Littleiohn Logging assumed that it possessed a right to
a jury trial, so long as the cause of action asserted therein was subject to that
-18-
No. 71068-1-1/19
right. The Court of Appeals merely determined that it was. Moreover, the right to
a jury trial was asserted on appeal by Littlejohn Logging, not by the State.
Littleiohn Logging. 60 Wash. App. at 673. The decision of the appellate court in
that case in no way assists with the inquiry in which we are presently engaged.
Article I of the Washington Constitution does not grant jury trial rights in
civil cases to the State.12
D
Therefore, if DOC has a right to a jury trial in this matter, it must be a right
provided by statute. In the trial court and in its appellate briefing, DOC
contended that two territorial statutes, now codified as RCW 4.40.06013 and
4.44.090,14 both grant it the right to a jury trial. RCW 4.40.060, a territorial
statute originally enacted in 1854, states in relevant part, "An issue offact, in an
action for the recovery of money only, or of specific real or personal property
shall be tried by a jury." RCW 4.44.090, a territorial statute originally enacted in
12 In State v. Oakley, 117Wn. App. 730, 734, 72 P.3d 1114 (2003), we held that RCW
3.66.010 and 10.04.050 unambiguously granted the State a right to a jury trial in a criminal case.
Acorollary ofthat holding is that only the individual, and not the State, is granted the right to trial
by jury in article I, section 22 ofthe stateconstitution, which deals with criminal trials.
13 "An issue of fact, in an action for the recovery of money only, or of specific real or
personal property shall be tried by a jury, unless a jury iswaived, as provided by law, or a
reference ordered, as provided by statute relating to referees." RCW 4.40.060.
The subsequent statute states, "Every other issue offact shall be tried by the court,
subject, however, to the right ofthe parties to consent, orofthe court to order, that the whole
issue, orany specific question offact involved therein, betried by a jury, or referred." RCW
4.40.070.
14 "All questions offact other than those mentioned in RCW 4.44.080, shall be decided by
the jury, and all evidence thereon addressed to them." RCW 4.44.090.
RCW 4.44.080 states, "All questions of law including the admissibility of testimony, the
facts preliminary to such admission, and the construction of statutes and other writings, and other
rules of evidence, are to be decided by the court, and all discussions of law addressed to it."
-19-
No. 71068-1-1/20
1869, states, "All questions of fact other than those mentioned in RCW 4.44.080,
shall be decided by the jury, and all evidence thereon addressed to them."
It is clear that, in 1854 and 1869, the legislature that passed these statutes
was not granting a jury trial right to the State of Washington. This is clear
because—in 1854 and 1869—there was no State of Washington.
Moreover, in 1854 and in 1869, there was no such thing as a civil tort
claim against the State. "A familiar and fundamental rule for the interpretation of
a statute is that it is presumed to have been enacted in the light of existing
judicial decisions that have a direct bearing upon it." Kelso v. Citv of Tacoma, 63
Wash. 2d 913, 917, 390 P.2d 2 (1964). For example, in 1902, our Supreme Court
held that a statute passed in 1895 dictating the proper forum for claims against
the State did not create any new causes of action against the State. Billings v.
State, 27 Wash. 288, 291-93, 67 P. 583 (1902). In Billings, the plaintiff had
attempted to assert a negligence claim against the State pursuant to a statute
which provided that, "'[a]ny person or corporation having any claim against the
state of Washington shall have the right to begin an action against the state in
the superiorcourt of Thurston county.'" Billings, 27 Wash, at 291 (quoting Bal.
Code § 5608). Our Supreme Court held that this statute did not abrogate the
State's sovereign immunity. Billings, 27 Wash, at 293. Rather, the State "has
not consented, either expressly or impliedly, to become responsible for the
misconduct or negligence of its officers or agents; and, in the absence of a
statute making it liable in damages therefor, no such action as the present one
can be maintained against the state." Billings, 27 Wash, at 293. Similarly, RCW
-20-
No. 71068-1-1/21
4.40.060 and 4.44.090 were enacted at a time when the sovereign enjoyed
immunity against civil tort claims. Both statutes must be read in light of this fact.
Our Supreme Court has previously interpreted one of the inter-related
statutes cited by DOC. In Dexter Horton Building Company v. King County. 10
Wash. 2d 186, 116 P.2d 507 (1941), the court clarified the scope of Rem. Rev.
Stat., § 314, now codified as RCW 4.40.060. In that case, the court found
authoritative the Laws of 1873, chapter 15, § 206, which declared that "nothing in
the civil practice act," including Rem. Rev. Stat., § 314, "shall be so construed as
to restrict the chancery powers of thejudges, or to authorize the trial of any issue
by a jury when the reliefsought is predicated upon a doctrine which is inherently
in equity." Dexter Horton. 10 Wash. 2d at 193. Hence, the court held that "[i]n the
light of that declaration it is clear that the provision for jury trial on issues offact
for the recovery of money only applies to common-law actions." Dexter Horton,
10 Wash. 2d at 193. There was, of course, no such thing as a civil tort claim against
the sovereign at common law. "The doctrine of governmental immunity springs
from the archaic concept that 'The King Can Do No Wrong.'" Kelso, 63 Wash. 2d at
914. This doctrine has long been considered part of the common law of
Washington. See Billings, 27 Wash, at 293. Thus, although generally a
negligence claim is a common law action, a civil tort action against the sovereign
was not an action available at common law. Nineteenth century statutes must be
construed with this in mind.
As the Dexter Horton case demonstrates, Washington's statehood and the
adoption of the Washington Constitution did not expand RCW 4.40.060 and
-21 -
No. 71068-1-1/22
RCW 4.44.090 beyond their then-existing reach. Rather, the constitution
provided for the continuation of those statutes as they were then understood.
Const, art. XXVII, § 2; State v. Ellis. 22 Wash. 129, 133, 60 P. 136 (1900)
overruled in part on other grounds bv State v. Lane. 40 Wash. 2d 734, 738, 246
P.2d 474 (1952). At the time these statutes were enacted, neither applied to the
State of Washington in civil tort actions, both because the State of Washington
did not then exist and because sovereign governments then enjoyed immunity
from such suits. Statehood and its concomitant adoption of the Washington
Constitution did not change these statutes' application and the legislature has
never amended them so as to provide a right to jury trial to the State in civil tort
cases.
Moreover, in 1854 and 1869, it is implausible that the territorial legislature
intended, by statute, to grant the right to a jury trial in tort claims against a
sovereign. "A court's goal in construing a statute is to determine and give effect
to the legislature's intent." TracFone Wireless. Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue. 170
Wash. 2d 273, 281, 242 P.3d 810 (2010) (citing Lake v. Woodcreek Homeowners
Ass'n. 169 Wash. 2d 516, 526, 243 P.3d 1283 (2010); Dep't of Ecology v. Campbell
& Gwinn. LLC. 146 Wash. 2d 1, 9-10, 43 P.3d 4 (2002)). The relevant inquiry is
directed to the intent of the legislature that passed the act in question. Pasado's
Safe Haven v. State. 162 Wash. App. 746, 754 n.6, 259 P.3d 280 (2011). During
the territorial period, the territorial legislature was sworn to uphold and subject to
22
No. 71068-1-1/23
only one constitution—the federal constitution.15 Organic Act, ch. 90, § 6, 10
Stat. 172. The federal constitution's Seventh Amendment did not then, and does
not now, provide the right to a jury trial for civil tort claims against the sovereign.
Indeed, "[i]t hardly can be maintained that under the common law in 1791 jury
trial was a matter of right for persons asserting claims against the sovereign."
Galloway v. United States. 319 U.S. 372, 388, 63 S. Ct. 1077, 87 L Ed. 1458
(1943). "Neither the Amendment's terms nor its history suggest it was intended
to extend to such claims." Galloway. 319 U.S. at 388 n.17.
Viewed in the context of the times, there is little doubt that neither the
1854 territorial legislature nor the 1869 territorial legislature was contemplating
the statutes at issue being applied to tort claims against the sovereign. Such a
state of affairs would have been unknown to legislators of that era. If the right to
a jury trial in a tort case was to be extended to the State by statute, it must have
been the act of some later legislature. But DOC pointed to no such later
enactment in its trial court briefing, nor in its opening or reply briefs on appeal.16
As the Washington Constitution's Declaration of Rights does not grant
rights to the State, and DOC did not identify a statutory basis for its asserted right
to a jury trial in an action of this type, the trial court did not err by striking the jury
15 Additionally, all territorial laws were subject to approval by Congress. Organic Act, ch.
90, §6, 10 Stat. 172.
16 DOC also cites to Civil Rule 38(a) for the proposition that the trial court erred by striking
the jury in this case. However, CR 38(a) is a court rule, not a statute. Further, CR 38(a) states,
"The right of trial by jury as declared by article I, section 21 of the constitution oras given by a
statute shall be preserved to the parties inviolate." This rule does not grant a right to a jury trial;
rather, it protects such rights as are provided by the constitution or by statute. Because DOC did
not establish that it had either a constitutional or statutory right to a jury trial, CR 38(a) did not
compel the trial judge to deny Maziar's motion to strike the jury.
-23-
No. 71068-1-1/24
upon Maziar's request.17 The case was properly tried to the bench.
Ill
In his cross appeal, Maziar contends that the trial court erred by declining
to award prejudgment interest. This is so, he asserts, because federal maritime
law compels the award of prejudgment interest. DOC defends the trial court's
decision, arguing that prejudgment interest is not permitted in this case because
the State has not waived its sovereign immunity against claims for prejudgment
interest. The trial court ruled properly.
We review the award or denial of prejudgment interest for an abuse of
discretion. Polygon Nw. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 143 Wash. App. 753, 790,
189 P.3d 777 (2008). "[A] ruling based on an erroneous legal interpretation is
necessarily an abuse of discretion." Endicott. 167 Wash. 2d at 886 (citing Wash.
State Physicians Ins. Exch. &Ass'n v. Fisons Corp.. 122 Wash. 2d 299, 339, 858
P.2d 1054(1993)).
"Prejudgment interest in maritime cases is substantive and so is controlled
by federal law." Endicott. 167 Wash. 2d at 886 (citing Militello v. Ann &Grace. Inc..
411 Mass. 22, 576 N.E.2d 675, 678 (1991)). In admiralty cases,
"prejudgment interest must be granted unless peculiar
circumstances justify its denial." Dillingham Shipyard v. Associated
Insulation Co., 649 F.2d 1322, 1328 (9th Cir.1981). . . . When a
district court "fail[s] to articulate any reason why" prejudgment
interest was denied, "the district court abuse[s] its discretion in
17 In this case, we resolve the questions presented by the issues as litigated by the
parties based upon the authorities properly presented to the trial court and to us. Nothing herein
should be read toforeclose future arguments premised upon statutes not presented to us in this
case.
-24-
No. 71068-1-1/25
refusing to award prejudgment interest." Edinburgh Assurance Co.
v. R.L Burns Corp.. 669 F.2d 1259, 1263 (9th Cir. 1982).
Vance v. Am. Haw. Cruises. Inc.. 789 F.2d 790, 795 (9th Cir. 1986) (alterations in
original). Here, the trial court denied prejudgment interest without giving a
reason. Although the trial court should have articulated a reason for its decision,
it did not abuse its discretion by declining to award prejudgment interest.
In Norris v. State, 46 Wash. App. 822, 825, 733 P.2d 231 (1987), Division
Two held that, "[t]he State has not consented to prejudgment interest on tort
claims against it." Eighteen years later, Division Two extended this holding to
apply to a suit brought under the Jones Act and federal maritime law. Foster v.
Dep't of Transp., 128 Wash. App. 275, 279, 115 P.3d 1029 (2005).
The court in Foster declined to consider whether federal maritime law
superseded the State's sovereign immunity, finding instead that prejudgment
interest is not awardable in mixed maritime and Jones Act suits.18 128 Wash. App.
at 279. We take up the question that Foster left open and hold that federal
maritime law does not supersede a state's sovereign immunity. The United
States Supreme Court has previously held that states are immune under the
Eleventh Amendment from admiralty and maritime suits brought in federal court.
Welch v. Tex. Dep't of Highways & Pub. Transp.. 483 U.S. 468, 472-73, 107 S.
Ct. 2941, 97 L. Ed. 2d 389 (1987). The United States is also immune from
admiralty suits, unless it has waived its immunity. See 46 U.S.C. § 742 (waiving
sovereign immunity for in personam admiralty suits). Therefore, sovereign
18 This portion of Foster was later overruled by ourSupreme Court in Endicott. 167
Wash. 2d at 888.
-25-
No. 71068-1-1/26
immunity is not incompatible with federal maritime law. As such, federal maritime
law does not supersede state sovereign immunity.
Because the State has never waived its sovereign immunity in this regard,
the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to award prejudgment
interest.
IV
Maziar additionally contends that the trial court erred by finding that he
had failed to mitigate his damages. This is so, he asserts, because he
reasonably believed that he would be unable to perform the mailroom job. The
trial court's ruling is amply supported by the record.
Whether a party has mitigated damages is a question of fact. TransAlta
Centralia Generation LLC v. Sicklesteel Cranes. Inc., 134 Wash. App. 819, 826,
142 P.3d 209 (2006). "Appellate courts apply the substantial evidence standard
of review to findings of fact made by the trial judge." In re Marriage of Rockwell,
141 Wash. App. 235, 242, 170 P.3d 572 (2007). Substantial evidence is defined as
a quantum of evidence sufficient to persuade a rational fair-minded
person the premise is true. Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan
County. 141 Wash. 2d 169, 176, 4 P.3d 123 (2000). Ifthe standard is
satisfied, a reviewing court will not substitute its judgment for that of
the trial court even though it might have resolved a factual dispute
differently. Croton Chem. Corp. v. Birkenwald, Inc.. 50 Wash. 2d 684,
314 P.2d 622 (1957).
Sunnvside Valley Irrigation Dist. v. Dickie, 149 Wash. 2d 873, 879-80, 73 P.3d 369
(2003). We will "'not substitute [our] judgment for the trial court's, weigh the
evidence, or adjudge witness credibility.'" Rockwell, 141 Wash. App. at 242
(quoting In re Marriage of Greene, 97 Wash. App. 708, 714, 986 P.2d 144 (1999)).
-26-
No. 71068-1-1/27
"The doctrine of avoidable consequences, also known as mitigation of
damages, prevents recovery for damages the injured party could have avoided
through reasonable efforts." Cobb v. Snohomish County, 86 Wash. App. 223, 230,
935 P.2d 1384 (1997) (citing Klossv. Honeywell. Inc.. 77 Wash. App. 294, 301, 890
P.2d 480 (1995)). Where the plaintiff claims lost wages, such damages are "not
recoverable to the extent plaintiff reasonably failed to mitigate his damages by
earning whatever he could at another occupation." Kubista v. Romaine. 87
Wash. 2d 62, 67, 549 P.2d 491 (1976). The burden of proving a failure to mitigate is
on the party who caused the damages. Cobb. 86 Wash. App. at 230 (citing
Bernsen v. Big Bend Elec. Coop.. 68 Wn .App. 427, 435, 842 P.2d 1047 (1993)).
In this case, the trial court found that Maziar did not mitigate his damages
because he declined to attempt to perform the functions of a mailroom clerk at
DOC. Based on the evidence presented at trial, a rational person could conclude
that Maziar did not reasonably attempt to mitigate his damages because he
declined to take the mailroom job. Although Dr. Settle advised Maziar not to take
the job, his advice was based on the mistaken belief that ferry passengers were
required to wear seatbelts. In fact, Dr. Settle believed that Maziar could perform
the functions of a mailroom clerk. Maziar's reasons for turning down the job were
based solely on his personal observations. This evidence sufficiently supports
the trial court's finding that Maziar acted unreasonably by turning down the
mailroom position. The trial court did not err by concluding that Maziar failed to
mitigate his damages.
-27
No. 71068-1-1/28
Affirmed.
MW.
We concur:
SMl"
28