Andrea Lister v. Ryan Phan ( 2016 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
ANDREA LISTER, No. 72525-4-1
Appellant, DIVISION ONE
v.
RYAN A. PHAN and JANE DOE UNPUBLISHED
PHAN, husband and wife and the
marital community composed thereof, FILED: June 13, 2016
Respondents.
Cox, J. -Andrea Lister appeals from the entry of judgment on a jury's
award of damages in a personal injury action. Because Lister's failure to comply
with the Rules of Appellate Procedure or provide an adequate record largely
precludes review, we affirm the judgment on the jury's verdict.
Lister sued Pham for general and special damages arising from an
automobile collision. Pham stipulated to negligence and the case proceeded to
trial on the elements of proximate cause and damages. Lister represented
herself. The jury returned a special verdict finding that Pham's negligence was
the proximate cause of Lister's injuries and awarding Lister $3,500 in past
economic damages. The jury declined to award noneconomic damages. The
trial court accordingly entered judgment for $3,500 in favor of Lister. Proceeding
pro se, Lister appeals.
No. 72525-4-1/2
Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys and
must comply with all procedural rules on appeal.1 An appellant must
provide "argument in support of the issues presented for review, together
with citations to legal authority and references to relevant parts of the
record."2 It is also the appellant's burden to provide a record sufficient to
review the issues raised on appeal.3 Failure to do so may preclude
appellate review.4
With few exceptions, Lister has failed to comply with these
requirements. Her briefing contains no citations to the record or references
to relevant authority. She also provided only a limited portion of the
verbatim report of proceedings for the trial. We address her claims to the
extent possible given the limits of the record and the legal analysis
provided.
Lister contends that the jury instructions were inadequate to inform
the jury on the issue of damages. As a result, she claims, the jury awarded
her less than the amount she proved at trial. But Lister does not identify
which instructions she believes were erroneous. Moreover, there is no
evidence in the record that she has provided that Lister objected to the
1 In re Marriage of Olson. 69 Wn. App. 621, 626, 850 P.2d 527(1993).
2 RAP 10.3(a)(6).
3 Story v. Shelter Bay Co.. 52 Wn. App. 334, 345, 760 P.2d 368(1988).
4 State v. Marintorres, 93 Wn. App. 442, 452, 969 P.2d 501 (1999).
2
No. 72525-4-1/3
instructions. Such a failure to object waives the issue on appeal.5 To the
extent Lister claims the jury's verdict was not supported by the evidence,
she fails to provide a sufficient record for review.
Lister argues that the jury should have awarded her punitive
damages. But Lister did not assert punitive damages in her complaint. Nor
are they awardable in a personal injury action.6
Lister claims that she was not given adequate time to question
witnesses at trial. A trial court has broad discretion to manage its
proceedings in order to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of
cases, including "the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and
presenting evidence."7 An abuse of discretion occurs only when the
decision of the court is manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable
grounds, or for untenable reasons.8 The limited portion of the record
designated by Lister does not show such an abuse of discretion. The trial
court curtailed Lister's examination only when Lister asked irrelevant
questions or continued to argue with a witness despite repeated
admonishments to cease doing so.
5 RAP 2.5(a); Ryder v. Kellv-Sprinqfield Tire Co., 91 Wn.2d 111,
114, 587P.2d 160(1978).
6 Zuverv. Airtouch Commc'ns. Inc.. 153 Wn.2d 293, 329, 103 P.3d 753(2004).
7 RCW 2.28.010; ER 611(a).
8 Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 142 Wn.2d 654, 683,
15P.3d 115(2000).
3
No. 72525-4-1/4
We affirm the judgment on the jury's verdict.
^A,J •
WE CONCUR:
[ /,ok; -, P\ OCT
IS>
Co
C5