Plaintiffs ask Court of Appeals for new trial, saying jury instruction misstated law in Satterwhite v. Bethel School District

Division 2 of the Washington Court of Appeals heard oral argument in Satterwhite v. Bethel School District No. 403, a civil appeal in which plaintiffs ask the court to reverse and order a new trial after an 11‑year‑old student (identified in the record as LB) was allegedly assaulted while receiving district‑approved virtual instruction.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Phil Talmadge told the three‑judge panel that Instruction No. 18 was an incorrect statement of law and ‘‘absolutely inappropriate and should not have been given’’ because it allowed the defense to focus the jury on whether the teacher, Eunice Jackson, had criminal culpability rather than on the district’s non‑delegable duty to protect the student. He said the instruction and defense closing argument invited jurors to ‘‘connect the dots’’ and blame the teacher and other individuals instead of holding the district to its protective obligation.

The argument centers on two duties the plaintiffs say the district owed LB: a non‑delegable protective duty to students entrusted to its care and a separate vicarious‑liability inquiry when an employee fails to report suspected abuse. Talmadge told the court the James Buell instruction (cited by defense counsel) is applicable only where the existence of a mandatory‑reporting duty is disputed, and here ‘‘everybody concedes that there was a duty to report,’’ so the instruction was legally improper and prejudicial.

Ted Masters, counsel for Bethel School District, defended the trial court’s handling and the record. Masters said trial counsel’s closing argument — which the trial judge repeatedly told the jury was argument, not evidence — did not transform permissible advocacy into reversible error. ‘‘She chose to protect her boyfriend and eventually husband who abused her little sister,’’ Masters said, describing the teacher’s testimony the jury heard as supporting a finding that she failed to report. He argued the record shows the district trained the employee and that negligence‑based direct claims were available and rejected by the jury, and that vicarious liability requires a factual connection between the professional duty and how the employee learned of the abuse.

Judges pressed both sides on legal boundaries. One judge asked whether there are scenarios in which a teacher learns of abuse in the course of employment and fails to report but the employer still can be vicariously liable; defense counsel drew a distinction between negligent failure to report (which can produce direct negligence claims) and an intentional departure from duties that may cut off vicarious liability. Plaintiffs countered that such a construction would unduly limit vicarious liability, citing Washington precedent including Green and Raman.

Both sides also debated whether defense questioning and exhibits improperly invited jurors to infer criminal culpability despite motions in limine that restricted reference to criminal charges. Plaintiffs argued references to criminality, combined with the instruction, prejudiced LB and required a curative instruction or reversal; the district contended the record contains no violation of the in limine orders and that the instruction reflected existing law about the required connection for mandatory reporters.

No decision was announced at argument. The court said it would consider remaining cases without oral argument and recessed. The parties left the panel without an immediate ruling on the requested new trial.

What’s next: The Court of Appeals will issue a written opinion resolving the legal questions raised at argument, including whether Instruction No. 18 was an erroneous statement of law and whether the trial record shows prejudicial conduct sufficient to justify reversal and a new trial.