According to court affidavit, Channary Hor was seriously injured in a vehicle accident involving officers from the Seattle Police Department. The case centers around a 2006 incident when a vehicle fleeing police crashed into a retaining wall in Seward Park. Channary Hor, 16 at the time of the crash, was a passenger in the vehicle and alleges in the lawsuit that Seattle police violated department policy by pursuing her vehicle.
Hor filed suit against the driver of the vehicle she was riding in, the City of Seattle, and the individual officers present at the time of the incident. It did not all go Hor’s way, however. The jury found the driver solely liable and only awarded damages. One of the key issues at trial was whether the officers were in pursuit of the vehicle. Both officers denied that they were.
It was reported that after the trial, one of the officers committed suicide. A local news article attributed the officer taking his life to the officers feelings of remorse over his accuracy of his trial testimony. Hor won a $17.4 million judgment against the driver in 2015. The trial judge refused to hold the officers responsible. The court dismissed the city and police officers as defendants.
Recently, Channary Hor appealed the judgment on an adverse jury verdict in the personal injury action. In which, a King County judge has again refused to grant a new civil trial to Hor who was left quadriplegic after the crash.
Not taking no for an answer, Hor argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her mistrial motion based on the City’s counsel’s alleged misconduct during opening statements.
To obtain a new trial, the misconduct must “materially affect the substantial rights of the losing party.” Additionally, the losing party must have properly objected to the misconduct. The trial court should grant a new trial only if “‘nothing the trial court could have said or done would have remedied the harm caused by the misconduct.” Ultimately, to Har’s disappointment, the judge found no clear and convincing evidence of fraud, and denied the plaintiff’s motion.
