Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Public Policy Over Metaphysics: Wrongful Birth And Wrongful Life In Harbeson V. Parke-Davis, Inc., Eric B. Schmidt
Public Policy Over Metaphysics: Wrongful Birth And Wrongful Life In Harbeson V. Parke-Davis, Inc., Eric B. Schmidt
Seattle University Law Review
The recognition of the wrongful birth and wrongful life causes of action by the Washington State Supreme Court is supported by both policy rationales and legal theories. Wrongful birth and wrongful life causes of action receive support from traditional tort principles and, more important, further public policy by deterring negligent genetic counseling and negligent preconception medical treatment. This Note describes the legal history of these claims and analyzes several issues not addressed by the Washington court. In addition, this Note criticizes a more recent decision by the court, which limits wrongful conception causes of action, because that decision conflicts with …
The Design Defect Test In Washington: The Requisite Balance, Joshua J. Preece
The Design Defect Test In Washington: The Requisite Balance, Joshua J. Preece
Seattle University Law Review
This Comment examines Washington's application of the design defect consumer expectations test. Washington courts have been inconsistent during the recent transition in products liability law. A case in point is Conner v. Skagit Corp.," in which the plaintiff was allowed to proceed with a design defect cause of action while offering proof of only one factor from the consumer expectations test. Accordingly, this Comment suggests that design defect plaintiffs must offer proof of multiple factors that relate to the issue of defectiveness and reasonableness. This proposal will be discussed in light of regional and national products liability theory and …
Herskovits V. Group Health Cooperative: Negligent Creation Of A Substantial Risk Of Injury Is A Compensable Harm, Warner Miller
Herskovits V. Group Health Cooperative: Negligent Creation Of A Substantial Risk Of Injury Is A Compensable Harm, Warner Miller
Seattle University Law Review
This Note commends the Herskovits court for recognizing the loss of-a-chance claim as a legitimate cause of action. Chance interests are worthy of the protection of tort law. We can be statistically certain that the destruction of chance interests in survival results in actual losses. The burden of such losses should not fall exclusively on the victim, particularly when the interfering conduct of the wrongdoer has deprived the individual victim of the ability to know and prove with certainty the value of the lost chance. The burden of the loss can be shifted in an equitable manner to the negligent …