Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Landowners Or Lifeguards? Degel V. Majestic Mobile Manor, Inc. And Liability For Visitors' Injuries From Natural Bodies Of Water, Joseph Z. Lell
Landowners Or Lifeguards? Degel V. Majestic Mobile Manor, Inc. And Liability For Visitors' Injuries From Natural Bodies Of Water, Joseph Z. Lell
Washington Law Review
Under an exception to the attractive nuisance doctrine, landowners typically owe no duty to warn and protect trespassing children from the dangers inherent in ponds, streams, and other natural bodies of water located on the owners' property. In Degel v. Majestic Mobile Manor, Inc., however, the Washington Supreme Court declined to extend this premises liability exception to situations where the injured visitor is an invitee of the landowner. This Note examines the natural bodies of water exception and argues that Degel's refusal to apply it in the invitee context ultimately conflicts with the court's earlier policy statement favoring …
Preemption Of State Product Liability Claims Involving Medical Devices: Premarket Approval As A Shield Against Liability, Robin Helmick Turner
Preemption Of State Product Liability Claims Involving Medical Devices: Premarket Approval As A Shield Against Liability, Robin Helmick Turner
Washington Law Review
Under the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA), Congress established a complex scheme for regulating medical devices. Congress also included an express preemption provision in the Amendments that prohibits states from imposing different or additional requirements on devices. Much controversy has focused on whether the preemption provision operates to preempt plaintiffs' state product liability claims against medical device manufacturers. Although in Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr the U.S. Supreme Court recently attempted to resolve the controversy, its ruling left open the question of whether manufacturers of devices subject to the most rigorous form of Food and Drug Administration scrutiny, known as …
What A Long Strange Trip It's Been: Court-Created Limitations On Rights Of Action For Negligently Furnishing Alcohol, Sheldon H. Jaffe
What A Long Strange Trip It's Been: Court-Created Limitations On Rights Of Action For Negligently Furnishing Alcohol, Sheldon H. Jaffe
Washington Law Review
Under the traditional view of the common law, drinking alcohol rather than providing alcohol acted as the proximate cause of any resulting harm, and therefore furmishers of alcohol had no duty to the people served or those injured by the persons served. The Washington Supreme Court has held that negligently furnishing alcohol can be a proximate cause in tort but has severely limited rights of action: vendors who serve minors or obviously intoxicated adults may be sued by subsequently injured innocent third parties, and all people who serve alcohol to minors may face suit if the minor is subsequently injured …