Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Torts
Washington's Special Relationship Exception To The Public Duty Doctrine, Jenifer Kay Marcus
Washington's Special Relationship Exception To The Public Duty Doctrine, Jenifer Kay Marcus
Washington Law Review
The public duty doctrine states that in order for a person to recover tort damages from a governmental entity, the individual must prove that the governmental entity breached a duty owed to him or her particularly, and not just a breach of a duty owed to the public. The "special relationship" exception to the doctrine provides a mechanism for proving a particularized duty. The Washington Supreme Court has now restricted this exception. By restricting the exception, the court may inappropriately bar certain injured plaintiffs from recovery. The restriction may also violate Washington statutes abrogating governmental immunity by giving government defendants …
"Respondent Inferior": The Rule Of Vanderpool V. Grange Insurance Association, 110 Wash. 2d 483, 756 P.2d 111 (1998)?, Karen P. Clark
"Respondent Inferior": The Rule Of Vanderpool V. Grange Insurance Association, 110 Wash. 2d 483, 756 P.2d 111 (1998)?, Karen P. Clark
Washington Law Review
At common law, the majority of states held that a tort claimant's release of either an employer whose sole liability was vicarious or the employee who had committed the tort operated to release the other. Washington follows this position for releases of an employee, but Vanderpool v. Grange Insurance Association announces a different rule for releases of an employer. This Note examines Vanderpool in view of relevant public policies, statutes, and prior case law and recommends adopting a rule that the release of a solvent employer operate to release its employee-tortfeasor.
State Constitutional Remedy Provisions And Article I, Section 10 Of The Washington State Constitution: The Possibility Of Greater Judicial Protection Of Established Tort Causes Of Action And Remedies, Janice Sue Wang
Washington Law Review
Several state courts interpret their states' constitutional remedy provisions as justifying heightened judicial scrutiny of legislative alterations in tort law. This confers greater protection of tort causes of action and remedies established at the time of the state constitution's adoption. This Comment considers whether article I, section 10 of the Washington constitution can support such an interpretation. Additionally, the author discusses the existing interpretations of other states' remedy provisions and suggests a heightened scrutiny model that best balances the interest in retaining already recognized tort remedies against the interest in fostering positive change.