Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Seller Beware: Tort Reform Is Missing In Action; Soproni, Falk, And The Entrenchment Of Strict Products Liability In Washington, Kenneth M. Roessler
Seller Beware: Tort Reform Is Missing In Action; Soproni, Falk, And The Entrenchment Of Strict Products Liability In Washington, Kenneth M. Roessler
Seattle University Law Review
This article evaluates Washington’s products liability laws and their application in ways involving strict liability through the lens of Soproni v. Polygon Apartment Partners. Part I will also closely examine the WPLA, beginning with a discussion of the tort reform context in which it was enacted and the underlying economic reasons for its passage in 1981. This section will discuss how the WPLA ostensibly supplanted Washington common law on product liability, as well as what a careful reading of the statute seems to dictate for litigating product liability claims. The article then examines how the Soproni majority construed the …
Recovery Of Pure Economic Loss In Product Liability Actions: An Economic Comparison Of Three Legal Rules, Heidi A. Irvin, Mark S. Carlson
Recovery Of Pure Economic Loss In Product Liability Actions: An Economic Comparison Of Three Legal Rules, Heidi A. Irvin, Mark S. Carlson
Seattle University Law Review
This Comment argues that in the allocation of pure economic loss caused by product failure, the negligence rule is generally more efficient than a strict liability rule and that a contract rule is almost always more efficient than a negligence rule. Part II presents a general discussion of the attributes of an economically efficient remedy. In Part III, three legal rules used to allocate pure economic loss are scrutinized under the standards set forth in Part II.
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 …
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.