Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Blindsight: How We See Disabilities In Tort Litigation, Anne Bloom, Paul Steven Miller
Blindsight: How We See Disabilities In Tort Litigation, Anne Bloom, Paul Steven Miller
Washington Law Review
Tort litigation operates with a distorted perspective of disability. It suffers from blindsight; it does not see people with disabilities the way they see themselves. Disability advocates emphasize that most people with disabilities lead happy lives. Deeply rooted biases, however, make it difficult for this perspective to be recognized. Tort litigation’s heavy emphasis on medical testimony and its repeated portrayal of plaintiffs as “less than whole” over-emphasize the physical aspects of disability and unfairly depict people with disabilities as tragic. When legal actors embrace these views, they reinforce harmful stereotypes outside the courthouse doors. Newly disabled plaintiffs are also likely …
Eastwood'S Answer To Alejandre'S Open Question: The Economic Loss Rule Should Not Bar Fraud Claims, Katherine Heaton
Eastwood'S Answer To Alejandre'S Open Question: The Economic Loss Rule Should Not Bar Fraud Claims, Katherine Heaton
Washington Law Review
The economic loss rule is a judicially created doctrine that bars plaintiffs from suing in tort for purely economic losses when the entitlement to recovery arises only from a contract. In Alejandre v. Bull, the Washington State Supreme Court acknowledged that there are exceptions to the rule but explicitly declined to say whether it would recognize an exception for fraud. Washington’s appellate courts answered Alejandre’s open question, holding that the economic loss rule barred all fraud claims except for the narrow tort of fraudulent concealment. The appellate courts interpreted Alejandre broadly to apply the economic loss rule whenever the …
Clearing The Air: Ordinary Negligence In Take-Home Asbestos Exposure Litigation, Rebecca Leah Levine
Clearing The Air: Ordinary Negligence In Take-Home Asbestos Exposure Litigation, Rebecca Leah Levine
Washington Law Review
Since 2005, take-home asbestos exposure claims have constituted a new wave of asbestos litigation. In contrast to employees exposed to asbestos at a worksite, take-home exposure occurred among those affected by employees who inadvertently carried asbestos home on their clothing or their tools. While some jurisdictions have rejected these claims on the basis that the defendant did not owe a legal duty to the plaintiff, the Washington Court of Appeals recently recognized the potential validity of a household member’s claim for relief for the harm he or she suffered as a result of asbestos exposure. In doing so, the court …