Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Shepard V. Superior Court—Recovery For Mental Distress In A Products Liability Action, G. Scott Greenburg
Shepard V. Superior Court—Recovery For Mental Distress In A Products Liability Action, G. Scott Greenburg
Seattle University Law Review
In Shepard v. Superior Court, the California Court of Appeals held that a party directly witnessing injury to a close relative could recover damages for resulting mental distress in a strict products liability action. By recognizing a duty to avoid infliction of emotional distress in a products liability case, Shepard elevated a manufacturer's duty in strict liability to the level recently recognized in a negligence action. The court correctly reasoned that a cause of action for mental distress in products liability was consistent with economic realities of modern society and the purposes behind products liability.
Mobil Oil Corp. V. Higginbotham—Confusion Returns To Maritime Wrongful Death Actions, Howard Hall
Mobil Oil Corp. V. Higginbotham—Confusion Returns To Maritime Wrongful Death Actions, Howard Hall
Seattle University Law Review
In 1967, a helicopter carrying three passengers and a pilot returning from an offshore drilling platform crashed into the Gulf of Mexico beyond Louisiana's territorial waters, killing all aboard. The families of the decedents instituted a wrongful death suit in admiralty, seeking recovery under general maritime law, the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA), and the Jones Act. The federal district court found Mobil Oil Corporation, the owner and operator of the helicopter, negligent. In awarding damages the district court limited recovery to pecuniary losses, holding that a pecuniary loss limitation applied regardless of the theory of recovery. Specifically, …
Roberts V. Johnson—A Welcome Change Tainted By An Outmoded Approach To Statutory Interpretation, Mark F. Miller
Roberts V. Johnson—A Welcome Change Tainted By An Outmoded Approach To Statutory Interpretation, Mark F. Miller
Seattle University Law Review
In 1974, the Washington State Legislature repealed its automobile guest statute, intending to establish ordinary negligence as the proper standard of liability in host-guest automobile tort actions. Nevertheless, in March 1978, in Lau v. Nelson, the Washington Supreme Court, ignoring clear indicia of legislative intent, held that the repeal of the guest statute revived the common law of this state, which, like the guest statute, predicated a guest's recovery on proving the host grossly negligent. Having effectively reinstated the very law the legislature repealed, the Lau court declined to decide whether the majority rule of ordinary negligence should replace …