Not in the Dictionary

A doctor misdiagnosed a woman’s ectopic pregnancy and removed the wrong Fallopian tube. The woman later had the other Fallopian tube removed in a second surgery. She sued. The jury returned a verdict of $71,795.53.

When the jury deliberated one juror looked up the word “negligence” in a dictionary (even though it is properly defined in the judge’s jury instructions) and reported the dictionary definition to other jurors. The judge granted the defense motion for a new trial. The woman appealed.[1]

The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial judge. The Court noted an earlier Washington Supreme Court decision in which essentially the same thing had happened. In that case, a jury looked up a legal term, and even used a legal dictionary. The dictionary definition differed from Washington law, so the court ordered a new trial. The Supreme Court upheld the result.

Perhaps the woman’s attorney in closing argument went over the definition of “negligence” in the judge’s instructions. In any event, these cases illustrate the vital importance of explaining the judge’s instructions in plain English in closing argument, “one of the more important tasks in closing.”[2]