Segura v. Cabrera

¶16 (dissenting) When construing the phrase “actual damages” in RCW 59.18.085, the majority *638follows judicial presumption rather than the intent of the legislature. In my view, the majority thus shirks a court’s responsibility to apply the law rather than create it. Therefore, I dissent.

¶17 On appeal, appellants Jose Segura and Tabetha Gonzalez contend that the trial court erred when it ruled that damages for emotional distress are not recoverable as “any actual damages” under RCW 59.18.085, the relocation assistance statute. The majority disagrees and affirms the trial court. I would hold…