Volume 11 — Washington Appellate Reports

<bold>[1] Damages — Measure of Damages — Difficulty of Ascertainment —</bold> <bold>Proof.</bold> Although the proving of damages may be accomplished by evidence that is not as specific or substantial as that required to establish liability, such proof must present sufficient evidence which will serve as a rational basis for the determination of damages. <bold>[2] Damages — Measure of Damages — Difficulty of Ascertainment —</bold> <bold>Lost Profits.</bold> Lost profits proven with reasonable certainty are recoverable but prospective profits from a future business, whose costs are unknown, are too remote and speculative to be recoverable. <bold>[3] Fraud — Elements — Degree of Proof.</bold> Fraud involves nine elements, all of which must be proven by the party alleging fraud by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. <bold>[4] Conspiracy — Civil Liability — Elements — Proof.</bold> A conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons who contrive to commit an illegal act, or to commit a lawful act by illegal means or for illegal purposes. A conspiracy must be proven by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence in order to impose civil liability. [See 16 Am.Jur.2d, Conspiracy §§ 43 <italic>et seq.,</italic> 59.] <bold>[5] Conspiracy — Civil Liability — Proof — Circumstantial</bold> <bold>Evidence.</bold> While a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence generally requires that all evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom be viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party, circumstantial proof of a civil conspiracy must be inconsistent with a lawful or honest purpose and reasonably consistent only with the existence of a conspiracy. <bold>[6] Trial — Taking Case From Jury — Prejudicial Evidence —</bold> <bold>Effect.</bold> Refusal of the trial court to submit an issue to the trier of fact renders the admission of prejudicial evidence moot and of no consequence.<page_number>Page 53</page_number>

<bold>[1] Secured Transactions — Enforcement — Motor Vehicles —</bold> <bold>Certificate of Ownership.</bold> An application for a certificate of ownership of a motor vehicle in compliance with RCW <cross_reference>46.12.030</cross_reference> contains the minimum elements necessary to enforce a security interest, under the provisions of RCW 62A.9-203, <italic>i.e.,</italic> it is in writing, is signed by the debtor-owner, and describes the vehicle. <bold>[2] Secured Transactions — Security Agreements — Determination.</bold> Whether or not an agreement exists between the parties and whether or not such an agreement creates or provides for a security interest are questions of fact. <bold>[3] Secured Transactions — Security Agreements — Parol</bold> <bold>Evidence.</bold> Parol evidence may be considered in determining whether or not an instrument was intended to create a security interest. [See 69 Am.Jur.2d, Secured Transactions § 275.]

<bold>[1] Products Liability — Strict Liability — Defective Product —</bold> <bold>Sellers.</bold> Nonmanufacturer sellers of a defective product, whether wholesalers or retailers, are, like the manufacturer, subject to the application of the doctrine of strict liability for personal injury or property damage resulting from such product when sold by them. [See Ann. 13 A.L.R.3d 1057, 1098; 63 Am.Jur.2d, Products Liability §§ 147, 148.] <bold>[2] Products Liability — Product Design — Defect — Liability.</bold> Manufacturers and sellers of products defectively designed may be liable for damage caused by the defect or for damage enhanced by the defect. <bold>[3] Products Liability — Product Design — Defect — Discernment.</bold> The trier of fact must resolve allegations that a product was defectively designed and, if so, whether or not such a defect was discernible by the user or was latent. <bold>[4] Products Liability — Product Design — Standard of Care.</bold> The manufacturer of a product must use reasonable care in designing a product to protect the user or consumer from an unreasonable risk of injury or the unreasonable risk of enhancing an injury. <bold>[5] Products Liability — Product Design — Defect —</bold> <bold>Reasonableness.</bold> Resolution of whether or not a defectively designed product subjected a user or consumer to an unreasonable risk of injury or an unreasonable risk of enhancing an injury is a question for the trier of fact. GREEN, C.J., dissents by separate opinion.