Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.76
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.76.030 (2026)

Increase or reduction of verdict as alternative to new trial

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
If the trial court shall, upon a motion for new trial, find the damages awarded by a jury to be so excessive or inadequate as unmistakably to indicate that the amount thereof must have been the result of passion or prejudice, the trial court may order a new trial or may enter an order providing for a new trial unless the party adversely affected shall consent to a reduction or increase of such verdict, and if such party shall file such consent and the opposite party shall thereafter appeal from the judgment entered, the party who shall have filed such consent shall not be bound thereby, but upon such appeal the court of appeals or the supreme court shall, without the necessity of a formal cross-appeal, review de novo the action of the trial court in requiring such reduction or increase, and there shall be a presumption that the amount of damages awarded by the verdict of the jury was correct and such amount shall prevail, unless the court of appeals or the supreme court shall find from the record that the damages awarded in such verdict by the jury were so excessive or so inadequate as unmistakably to indicate that the amount of the verdict must have been the result of passion or prejudice.
[ 1971 c 81 s 19; 1933 c 138 s 2; RRS s 399-1.]

Notes:

Severability—1933 c 138: "Adjudication of invalidity of any of the sections of this act, or any part of any section, shall not impair or otherwise affect the validity of any other of said sections or remaining part of any section." [ 1933 c 138 s 3.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 90 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1952–2026 · leading case: Bunch v. King Cnty. Dep't of Youth Servs., 155 Wash. 2d 165 (Wash. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bunch v. King Cnty. Dep't of Youth Servs., 155 Wash. 2d 165 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 7× “On appeal, the appellate court reviews the trial court’s action de novo and applies a strong presumption in favor of the jury’s award.”
Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp., 780 P.2d 260 (Wash. 1989). · cites it 6× “A judge can only reduce a jury's damages determination when it is, in light of this strong presumption, wholly unsupported by the *655 evidence, obviously motivated by passion or prejudice, or shocking to the court's conscience. Third, the opposing party in cases of remittitur…”
Bunch v. King Cnty. Dept. of Youth Serv., 116 P.3d 381 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 7× “On appeal, the appellate court reviews the trial court's action de novo and applies a strong presumption in favor of the jury's award.”
Collins v. Clark Cnty. Fire Dist. No. 5, 231 P.3d 1211 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “Defendants’ Motion for New Trial or Remittitur ¶56 Defendants moved postverdict for a new trial or remittitur under CR 59(a), judgment as a matter of law under CR 50(b), and a new trial or remittitur under RCW 4.76.030. They argued that (1) “irregularity or misconduct based on…”
Mut. of Enumclaw Ins. v. Gregg Roofing, Inc., 315 P.3d 1143 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 5× “After the jury returned its verdict, MOE renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law under CR 50(b) and moved for a new trial under CR 59 or, as an alternative, reduction of the verdict under RCW 4.76.030. MOE argued that the damages were speculative because the jury did…”
Collins v. Clark Cnty. Fire Dist. No. 5, 231 P.3d 1211 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 7× “Defendants' Motion for New Trial or Remittitur ś 56 Defendants moved post-verdict for a new trial or remittitur under CR 59(a), judgment as a matter of law under CR 50(b), and a new trial or remittitur under RCW 4.76.030. They argued that (1) "irregularity or misconduct based on…”
Green v. McAllister, 14 P.3d 795 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 10× “cross-appeals the amount of the accounting judgment, denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on breach of contract, and the award of prejudgment interest.”
Green v. McAllister, 14 P.3d 795 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 10× “cross-appeals the amount of the accounting judgment, denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on breach of contract, and the award of prejudgment interest.”
Thompson v. Berta Enter., Inc., 864 P.2d 983 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 9× “The trial court denied Mid-Mac's motion for a new trial, conditioning its denial on Thompson's acceptance of a reduction in her jury verdict from $278,000 to $25,000, exclusive of attorney fees and costs. 8 The trial court held that, as a matter of law, the damages were "so…”
Washington State Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp., 858 P.2d 1054 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 2× “2d at 1112 (the presumption against preemption is even stronger against preemption of state remedies, like tort recoveries, when no federal remedy exists).”
Anderson v. Dalton, 246 P.2d 853 (Wash. 1952). · cites it 6× “RCW 4.76.030; cf. Rem. Rev. Stat. (Sup.), § 399-1.”
Robinson v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 776 P.2d 676 (Wash. 1989). · cites it 2× “RCW 4.76.030. Upon review by an appellate court of an award of additur, the Legislature has additionally provided that there shall be a presumption that the amount of damages awarded by the verdict of the jury was correct and such amount shall prevail, unless the court of…”
Show all 90 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.