exercise of judgment instruction in Washington

12 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2026 5 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
Watson v. Hockettgreen wash · 1986 · cited in 7 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2015–2024 2 sentences 2024In addition, as recognized by the Supreme Court in Watson, the exercise of judgment instruction does not alter the applicable standard of care: in discussing what was then referenced as the “error in judgment” instruction alongside “similar supplemental or clarifying instructions,” our Supreme Court stated that such instructions “‘supplement’ the standard of care; while they may clarify it, they do not change it.” 107 Wn.2d at 166 -67 (citing Miller v. Kennedy, 91 Wn.2d 155, 159 , 588 P.2d 734 (1978)).15 Therefore, the purpose for giving such an instruction—and the reason for clarification—is 2024In addition, as recognized by the Supreme Court in Watson, the exercise of judgment instruction does not alter the applicable standard of care: in discussing what was then referenced as the “error in judgment” instruction alongside “similar supplemental or clarifying instructions,” our Supreme Court stated that such instructions “‘supplement’ the standard of care; while they may clarify it, they do not change it.” 107 Wn.2d at 166 -67 (citing Miller v. Kennedy, 91 Wn.2d 155, 159 , 588 P.2d 734 (1978)).15 Therefore, the purpose for giving such an instruction—and the reason for clarification—is	4	7
Christensen v. Munsengreen wash · 1994 · cited in 4 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2015–2024 2 sentences 2024PERDUE & READ KHOURY, THE LAW OF TEXAS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (2d ed.), ch. 2, reprinted in 22 15 See also Fergen, 182 Wn.2d at 805 (the exercise of judgment instruction, in appropriate circumstances, “may be given to supplement a general instruction on the proper standard of care” (citing Christensen, 123 Wn.2d at 238 ; Watson, 107 Wn.2d at 165 ; Miller, 11 Wn. 2024Moreover, the exercise of judgment instruction issued to the jury “accurately stated the law as set forth by this court in Watson and thus did not constitute [a] comment[ ] on the evidence.” Christensen, 123 Wn.2d at 249 . 63 No. 85208-6-I/64 Hence, the trial court was justified in issuing the exercise of judgment jury instruction as a supplement to the standard of care instruction.	4	4
Fergen v. Sesterogreen wash · 2015 · cited in 6 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2015–2026 2 sentences 2026OUR SCOPE OF REVIEW IS NARROW The use of the exercise of judgment instruction “is limited to situations where the doctor uses judgment to choose between alternative treatments or diagnoses.” Fergen, 182 Wn.2d at 805 . 2024See Fergen, 182 Wn.2d at 810 (discussing in the context of a challenge to the exercise of judgment instruction that “instructions that inform the jury of a party’s theory of the case are not necessarily harmful or incorrect”). 28 No. 85208-6-I/29 Furthermore, our Supreme Court has held that issuing the exercise of judgment instruction is proper when the record contains conflicting medical expert testimony as to whether the physician defendant’s choice of treatment was consistent with the standard of care.	2	6
Pleasants v. Alliance Corp.green wva · 2001 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015See Pleasants, 543 S.E.2d at 330 -32 & n.27 (finding error harmless in light of other instructions correctly stating the law; collecting similar cases); Yates v. Univ. of W. 2015See Pleasants, 543 S.E.2d at 330 -32 & 330 n.27 (finding error harmless in light of other instructions correctly stating the law; collecting similar cases); Yates v. Univ. of W.	2	2
Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., Inc.green wash · 1995 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013See Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., 127 Wn.2d 67, 92 , 896 P.2d 682 (1995) (a jury instruction contains a legal error if it does not allow a party to argue his of her theory of the case, misleads the jury, or, when considered with other jury instructions as a whole, improperly informs the jury of the applicable law). 2013See Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., 127 Wn.2d 67, 92 , 896 P.2d 682 (1995) (a jury instruction contains a legal error if it does not allow a party to argue his of her theory of the case, misleads the jury, or, when considered with other jury instructions as a whole, improperly informs the jury of the applicable law).	2	2

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (12)

Case	Cited	Years
Seattle Western Industries, Inc. v. David A. Mowat Co. green wash · 1988 2 sentences 2015The majority acknowledges this, majority at 14 n.4, but at the same time suggests a defendant may be entitled to the exercise of judgment instruction, id. at 17 . 2013Indus., Inc. v. David A. Mowat Co., 110 Wn.2d 1, 9 , 750 P.2d 245 (1988); Thomas v. Wilfac, Inc., 65 Wn.	3	2013–2015
Miller v. Kennedy green wash · 1978 2 sentences 2024In addition, as recognized by the Supreme Court in Watson, the exercise of judgment instruction does not alter the applicable standard of care: in discussing what was then referenced as the “error in judgment” instruction alongside “similar supplemental or clarifying instructions,” our Supreme Court stated that such instructions “‘supplement’ the standard of care; while they may clarify it, they do not change it.” 107 Wn.2d at 166 -67 (citing Miller v. Kennedy, 91 Wn.2d 155, 159 , 588 P.2d 734 (1978)).15 Therefore, the purpose for giving such an instruction—and the reason for clarification—is 2024In addition, as recognized by the Supreme Court in Watson, the exercise of judgment instruction does not alter the applicable standard of care: in discussing what was then referenced as the “error in judgment” instruction alongside “similar supplemental or clarifying instructions,” our Supreme Court stated that such instructions “‘supplement’ the standard of care; while they may clarify it, they do not change it.” 107 Wn.2d at 166 -67 (citing Miller v. Kennedy, 91 Wn.2d 155, 159 , 588 P.2d 734 (1978)).15 Therefore, the purpose for giving such an instruction—and the reason for clarification—is	2	2024–2024
Vasquez v. Markin green washctapp · 1986 2 sentences 2024See Christensen[ v. Munsen], 123 Wn.2d [234, ]247-49[, 867 P.2d 626 (1994)]; Watson[ v. Hockett], 107 Wn.2d [158, ]161-170[, 727 P.2d 669 (1986)]; Miller[ v. Kennedy], 91 Wn.2d [155, ]159-61[, 588 P.2d 734 (1978)]; Vasquez, 46 Wn. 2024See Christensen, 123 Wn.2d at 247-49 ; Watson, 107 Wn.2d at 161-170 ; Miller, 91 Wn.2d at 159-61 ; Vasquez, 46 Wn.	2	2024–2024
Gerard v. Sacred Heart Medical Center green washctapp · 1997 2 sentences 2015Watson, 107 Wn.2d at 167 ; Gerard, 86 Wn. 2015Watson, 107 Wn.2d at 167 ; Gerard, 86 Wn.	2	2015–2015
Yates v. University of West Virginia Board of Trustees green wva · 2001 2 sentences 2015Cf Yates, 549 S.E.2d at 691 & n.18. 2015Cf. Yates, 549 S.E.2d at 691 & n.18.	2	2015–2015
Versteeg v. Mowery green wash · 1967 1 sentence 2024It, again, follows from another basic principle: “[i]n the absence of 44 No. 85208-6-I/45 proof that the doctor failed to exercise the required level of skill and care, the patient suing the doctor should not prevail.” Watson, 107 Wn.2d at 161 -62 (citing Versteeg, 72 Wn.2d at 755 ; Richison, 57 Wn.2d at 4-5 ).	1	2024–2024
Miller v. Kennedy green washctapp · 1974 2 sentences 2024PERDUE & READ KHOURY, THE LAW OF TEXAS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (2d ed.), ch. 2, reprinted in 22 15 See also Fergen, 182 Wn.2d at 805 (the exercise of judgment instruction, in appropriate circumstances, “may be given to supplement a general instruction on the proper standard of care” (citing Christensen, 123 Wn.2d at 238 ; Watson, 107 Wn.2d at 165 ; Miller, 11 Wn. 2024PERDUE & READ KHOURY, THE LAW OF TEXAS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (2d ed.), ch. 2, reprinted in 22 15 See also Fergen, 182 Wn.2d at 805 (the exercise of judgment instruction, in appropriate circumstances, “may be given to supplement a general instruction on the proper standard of care” (citing Christensen, 123 Wn.2d at 238 ; Watson, 107 Wn.2d at 165 ; Miller, 11 Wn.	1	2024–2024
Richison v. Nunn green wash · 1959 1 sentence 2024It, again, follows from another basic principle: “[i]n the absence of 44 No. 85208-6-I/45 proof that the doctor failed to exercise the required level of skill and care, the patient suing the doctor should not prevail.” Watson, 107 Wn.2d at 161 -62 (citing Versteeg, 72 Wn.2d at 755 ; Richison, 57 Wn.2d at 4-5 ).	1	2024–2024
Merriam v. Hamilton green or · 1913 2 sentences 2024It is now well settled that a physician is entitled to practice his profession, possessing the requisite qualifications, and applying his skill and judgment with due care, and is not ordinarily liable for damages consequent upon an honest mistake or an error of judgment in making a diagnosis, in prescribing treatment, or in determining upon an operation, where there is reasonable doubt as to the nature of the physical conditions involved, or as to what should have been done in accordance with recognized authority and good current practice. 30 Cyc. 1578; Merriam v. Hamilton, 64 Or. 476 , 130 Pa 2024It is now well settled that a physician is entitled to practice his profession, possessing the requisite qualifications, and applying his skill and judgment with due care, and is not ordinarily liable for damages consequent upon an honest mistake or an error of judgment in making a diagnosis, in prescribing treatment, or in determining upon an operation, where there is reasonable doubt as to the nature of the physical conditions involved, or as to what should have been done in accordance with recognized authority and good current practice. 30 Cyc. 1578; Merriam v. Hamilton, 64 Or. 476 , 130 Pa	1	2024–2024
Fergen v. Sestero green washctapp · 2013 1 sentence 2021Fergen v. Sestero, 174 Wn.	1	2021–2021
Dinner v. Thorp green wash · 1959 2 sentences 2015It is a refinement of the “error in judgment” instruction, which required a jury to consider whether a health care provider exercised judgment in “good faith.” Dinner v. Thorp, 54 Wn.2d 90, 97-98 , 338 P.2d 137 (1959). 2015It is a refinement of the “error in judgment” instruction, which required a jury to consider whether a health care provider exercised judgment in “good faith.” Dinner v. Thorp, 54 Wn.2d 90, 97-98 , 338 P.2d 137 (1959).	1	2015–2015
Thomas v. Wilfac, Inc. green washctapp · 1992 1 sentence 2013Indus., Inc. v. David A. Mowat Co., 110 Wn.2d 1, 9 , 750 P.2d 245 (1988); Thomas v. Wilfac, Inc., 65 Wn.	1	2013–2013

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70.030 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 7.70.040 (4)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

WA 12 (2013–2026) NJ 4 (1998–2002)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check