## Facts

- Austin Sofie, a pipefitter, developed mesothelioma allegedly caused by occupational exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by multiple defendants.
- Austin Sofie and his spouse, Marcia Sofie, sued the manufacturers for personal injury damages and loss of consortium.
- A jury found defendants at fault and returned a verdict totaling $1,345,833, including $1,154,592 in noneconomic damages.
- A Washington statute, RCW 4.56.250, imposed an age-based formula limit on noneconomic damages in personal injury and wrongful death actions.
- Applying RCW 4.56.250 after the verdict, the trial court reduced the noneconomic damages to $125,136.45 and entered a reduced total judgment of $316,377.45.
- The Sofies appealed, challenging the constitutionality of RCW 4.56.250 and seeking reinstatement of the full noneconomic award.
- Defendants cross-appealed, asserting trial errors, including issues involving joint and several liability, alleged juror misconduct, and evidentiary rulings.

## Issues

1. Whether RCW 4.56.250’s statutory cap on noneconomic damages violates article I, section 21 of the Washington Constitution by intruding on the jury’s traditional function to determine damages.
2. Whether the statute also violates equal protection or due process under state or federal law (if necessary to decide).
3. Whether defendants were entitled to relief based on alleged trial errors raised on cross-appeal.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court held RCW 4.56.250 unconstitutional under article I, section 21 because it interferes with the jury’s function to determine damages.
- The court reversed the trial court’s post-verdict reduction of noneconomic damages and reinstated the jury’s full damages award.
- The court declined to decide the equal protection and due process challenges because the statute failed under the state jury-trial provision.
- The court rejected defendants’ cross-appeal claims and found no reversible trial error.

## Legal Principles

- The Washington constitutional right to civil jury trial preserves the jury’s essential fact-finding functions as they existed in 1889, including determination of the amount of damages.
- A statute that requires a judge to reduce a jury’s noneconomic damages award by applying a fixed formula, without regard to the evidence in the individual case, violates article I, section 21.
- Remittitur differs from a statutory cap: remittitur is permitted only under established standards tied to evidentiary support and concerns such as passion or prejudice, and it does not authorize automatic legislative replacement of the jury’s damages finding.
- Once a damages-cap statute is invalidated on jury-trial grounds, a court may decline to reach additional constitutional theories if unnecessary to the disposition.

## Conclusion

Washington’s age-based statutory cap on noneconomic damages impermissibly displaced the jury’s damages determination and therefore violated the state constitutional jury-trial right; the full jury verdict was reinstated, and defendants’ asserted trial errors did not warrant relief.


Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp., 771 P.2d 711 (Wash. 1989)