Torts Commons^™

The Reasonability Rule For Medical Damages In Tort: In Defense Of Chargemaster Recovery, Avery E. Tunstill

Washington Law Review

In a personal injury suit, Washington law requires the plaintiff to prove that their medical costs are reasonable to recover damages for those costs. Tort reform proponents attempt to use this reasonability rule to limit tort damages awards. They argue that a plaintiff should only recover a portion of a hospital’s bill because most people do not pay a hospital’s sticker price—or the “chargemaster rate”—for medical care. Some reformers argue that recovery rates should instead be based on a set figure. Others argue in favor of eliminating the collateral source rule, which prohibits juries from reducing tort damages awards in …

Opioids And Oblivion: Corporate Bankruptcy And The Erosion Of Accountability In Big Pharma, Ying Yuan

Washington Law Review

In June 2024, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma that nonconsensual releases for nondebtors are unconstitutional. The decision marked a key development in mass tort litigation involving Purdue Pharma, the company at the center of the opioid crisis. The Sackler family sought to use Purdue’s bankruptcy proceedings to shield themselves from liability, but the Court’s ruling invalidated the use of nondebtor releases to protect third parties from claims without the full consent of affected parties. While the ruling strengthens creditor protections, it creates uncertainty regarding how mass tort bankruptcies can efficiently compensate victims, particularly in …

Transportation Racism And State-Created Danger: A Civil Rights Litigation Strategy For Pedestrians Harmed By Traffic Violence, Riley Freedman

Washington Law Review

Pedestrian fatality rates in the United States are markedly high compared to peer nations and are on the rise. The distribution of these deaths shows an alarming racial gap: Black pedestrians are twice as likely to be killed compared to white pedestrians. One significant factor that explains the disparity is the greater presence of wide, high-speed roads—built to move traffic quickly at the expense of pedestrian safety—in Black neighborhoods. In some cases, there is evidence that governments intentionally placed roads through and around Black neighborhoods for racially discriminatory reasons.

This Comment argues that a pedestrian harmed or killed by a …

Surprises In The Skies: Resolving The Circuit Split On How Courts Should Determine Whether An "Accident" Is "Unexpected Or Unusual" Under The Montreal Convention, Ashley Tang

Washington Law Review

Article 17 of both the Montreal Convention and its predecessor, the Warsaw Convention, imposes liability onto air carriers for certain injuries and damages from “accidents” incurred by passengers during international air carriage. However, neither Convention defines the term “accident.” While the United States Supreme Court opined that, for the purposes of Article 17, an air carrier’s liability “arises only if a passenger’s injury is caused by an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger,” it did not explain what standards lower courts should employ to discern whether an event is “unexpected or unusual.” In 2004, …

Law's Credibility Problem, Julia Simon-Kerr

Washington Law Review

Credibility determinations often seal people’s fates. They can determine outcomes at trial; they condition the provision of benefits, like social security; and they play an increasingly dispositive role in immigration proceedings. Yet there is no stable definition of credibility in the law. Courts and agencies diverge at the most basic definitional level in their use of the category.

Consider a real-world example. An immigration judge denies asylum despite the applicant’s plausible and unrefuted account of persecution in their country of origin. The applicant appeals, pointing to the fact that Congress enacted a “rebuttable presumption of credibility” for asylum-seekers “on appeal.” …

You Are Not A Commodity: A More Efficient Approach To Commercial Privacy Rights, Benjamin T. Pardue

Washington Law Review

United States common law provides four torts for privacy invasion: (1) disclosure of private facts, (2) intrusion upon seclusion, (3) placement of a person in a false light, and (4) appropriation of name or likeness. Appropriation of name or likeness occurs when a defendant commandeers the plaintiff’s recognizability, typically for a commercial benefit. Most states allow plaintiffs who establish liability to recover defendants’ profits as damages from the misappropriation under an “unjust enrichment” theory. By contrast, this Comment argues that such an award provides a windfall to plaintiffs and contributes to suboptimal social outcomes. These include overcompensating plaintiffs and incentivizing …

Seeking (Some) Climate Justice In State Tort Law, Karen C. Sokol

Washington Law Review

Over the last decade, an increasing number of path-breaking cases have been filed throughout the world, seeking to hold fossil fuel industry companies and governments accountable for their actions and inactions that have contributed to the climate crisis. This Article focuses on an important subset of those cases—namely, the recent surge of cases brought by states, cities, and counties all over the United States alleging that the largest fossil fuel industry actors, including ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and Chevron, are liable in state tort law for harms caused by climate change.

The Article begins with a synthesis of the history of …

Clarifying Washington's Approach To The Independent Duty Doctrine, Margaret Wykowski

Washington Law Review

When faced with limited or no recovery under contract law, resourceful lawyers often turn to tort law. The economic loss rule restricts this practice by barring recovery in tort for solely economic losses. However, what qualifies as “economic loss” is not always clear. In 2010, the Washington State Supreme Court announced it was clarifying the economic loss rule by adopting the independent duty doctrine. Rather than analyze the type of loss suffered, the independent duty doctrine determines whether a party owed a tort duty independent of the relevant contract, closely mirroring a traditional tort inquiry. When establishing the independent duty …

Emergent Regulatory Systems And Their Challenges: The Case Of Combination Medical Products, George Horvath

Washington Law Review

Where regulatory systems overlap, courts and scholars often focus on the undesirable aspects of the overlap—the ways in which systems conflict. One such context involves the regulation of prescription drugs and medical devices by the FDA’s premarket evaluation processes and by state common-law tort and products liability actions. FDA regulation and state common law are often described as separate, conflicting regulatory systems. This Article challenges that description by proposing a model in which FDA premarket evaluation and state common law function as a single regulatory system. This model brings order to the Supreme Court’s seemingly inconsistent medical products preemption cases, …

Privacy's Double Standards, Scott Skinner-Thompson

Washington Law Review

Where the right to privacy exists, it should be available to all people. If not universally available, then privacy rights should be particularly accessible to marginalized individuals who are subject to greater surveillance and are less able to absorb the social costs of privacy violations. But in practice, there is evidence that people of privilege tend to fare better when they bring privacy tort claims than do non-privileged individuals. This disparity occurs despite doctrine suggesting that those who occupy prominent and public social positions are entitled to diminished privacy tort protections. This Article unearths disparate outcomes in public disclosure tort …

Loss-Of-Chance Doctrine In Washington: From Herskovits To Mohr And The Need For Clarification, Matthew Wurdeman

Washington Law Review

Loss of chance is a well-established tort doctrine that seeks to balance traditional tort causation principles with the need to provide a remedy to patients whose injuries or illnesses are seriously exacerbated by physician negligence. In Washington, the doctrine continues to create significant difficulties for judges, juries, and practitioners. Wherever it has been applied, it has often created difficulties. The loss-of-chance doctrine needs clarification—definitive, sensible, and workable guidelines to ensure that loss of chance is consistently and fairly applied. Part of the problem lies in the fact that courts and litigants use the term “loss of chance” as if it …

Loss-Of-Chance Doctrine In Washington: From Herskovits To Mohr And The Need For Clarification, Matthew Wurdeman

Washington Law Review

Loss of chance is a well-established tort doctrine that seeks to balance traditional tort causation principles with the need to provide a remedy to patients whose injuries or illnesses are seriously exacerbated by physician negligence. In Washington, the doctrine continues to create significant difficulties for judges, juries, and practitioners. Wherever it has been applied, it has often created difficulties. The loss-of-chance doctrine needs clarification—definitive, sensible, and workable guidelines to ensure that loss of chance is consistently and fairly applied. Part of the problem lies in the fact that courts and litigants use the term “loss of chance” as if it …

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

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

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 …

Rebooting Cybertort Law, Michael L. Rustad, Thomas H. Koenig

Washington Law Review

Cyberspace provides an ideal legal environment for tortfeasors and online criminals because Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have no duty to mitigate harms caused by ongoing torts, crimes, and infringing acts. Courts have stretched Congress's express language in § 230 of the Communications Decency Act from the narrow purpose of immunizing ISPs as publishers to the expanded purpose of shielding them from all tort liability. This Article proposes imposing a limited duty of care on ISPs to remove or block ongoing tortious activities on their services when they have been given actual notice. This reform will harmonize American ISP liability law …

So The Army Hired An Ax-Murderer: The Assault And Battery Exception To The Federal Tort Claims Act Does Not Bar Suits For Negligent Hiring, Retention And Supervision, Rebecca L. Andrews

Washington Law Review

The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) waives the federal government's sovereign immunity as to claims for injuries caused by an act or omission of a government employee within his or her scope of duty. However, this waiver is not absolute and the government has retained immunity for many claims, including those arising out of an assault or battery. The federal circuit courts are split regarding whether this exception applies to claims for the negligent hiring, retention and supervision of federal employees who commit an assault or battery. While the U.S. Supreme Court has left the question unanswered, the Ninth Circuit …

Holding Tortfeasors Accountable: Apportionment Of Enhanced Injuries Under Washington's Comparative Fault Scheme, Ryan P. Harkins

Washington Law Review

The enhanced-injury doctrine imposes a negligence-based duty to reasonably minimize the foreseeable risk of injury enhancement in the event of primary accidents, regardless of their cause. When apportioning responsibility for enhanced injuries under principles of comparative fault, a majority of courts outside of Washington use a plaintiffs fault in causing the primary accident to reduce recovery for enhanced injuries. A minority of courts, however, rule that because the enhanced-injury doctrine presupposes the occurrence of primary accidents, primary fault is legally irrelevant to apportionment of enhanced injuries. Washington courts have not addressed this issue. This Comment argues that Washington courts should …

Fundamental Protection Of A Fundamental Right: Full Recovery Of Child-Rearing Damages For Wrongful Pregnancy, Patricia Baugher

Washington Law Review

The U. S. Constitution and Washington statutes protect the right to choose not to have a child as a fundamental right. When a healthy child is born after contraceptive methods fail due to physician negligence, parents can sue on a "wrongful pregnancy" cause of action. In all jurisdictions recognizing wrongful pregnancy, parents may recover damages for medical expenses associated with pregnancy and childbirth. A controversy exists, however, concerning whether parents may recover the ordinary expenses of child rearing. While some states allow full recovery of these expenses, and other states allow recovery of the economic expense offset by the emotional …

Mail-Order Gun Kits And Fingerprint-Resistant Pistols: Why Washington Courts Should Impose A Duty On Gun Manufacturers To Market Firearms Responsibly, Amy Edwards

Washington Law Review

Plaintiffs have historically been unsuccessful in suing gun manufacturers for injuries inflicted by the criminal acts of third parties. Until recently, with one exception, courts uniformly found no basis for liability under either strict liability or general negligence claims. In three recent cases, however, courts have imposed a duty under negligent-marketing theories. These theories have yet to be tested in Washington. This Comment examines the potential viability of a lawsuit by victims of gun violence against gun manufacturers for negligent marketing in Washington. It ultimately concludes that Washington courts can and should impose a duty on gun manufacturers to refrain …

How Many People Does It Take To Save A Drowning Baby?: A Good Samaritan Statute In Washington State, Sungeeta Jain

Washington Law Review

For the past three years, the Washington legislature has considered a Good Samaritan bill, nicknamed the "Joey Levick Bill," that would impose a duty to summon assistance for those known to be substantially injured. This Comment argues that the bill is minimally intrusive and should be acceptable to autonomous individuals, because it requires a bystander merely to notify the appropriate authorities is if the bystander sees someone who is substantially injured. The bill also addresses the concerns about sinister abuse of the law by criminals feigning injury, by not requiring an individual to attempt a physical rescue. In addition, the …

Collision At Sea: The Irreconcilability Of The Superseding Cause And Pure Comparative Fault Doctrines In Admiralty, Kelsey L. Joyce Hooke

Washington Law Review

Courts have long sought to develop rational methods both for limiting a tortfeasor's liability and allocating damages among multiple tortfeasors. Courts developed the doctrine of proximate cause to address the first concern, employing superseding cause analysis when multiple forces produce an injury. In admiralty, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved the second concern by adopting pure comparative fault in . In Exxon Co. v. Sofec, Inc., the Court endorsed the continued use of superseding cause in admiralty cases, holding that it does not conflict with pure comparative fault. This Comment argues that the Sofec Court's method of superseding cause analysis …

Circuit Over Troubled Waters: Ninth Circuit Comparative Fault Principles In Seaman's Personal Injury Actions, Orland S. Seballos

Washington Law Review

Maritime personal injury actions employ the comparative fault doctrine, under which damages are allocated between mutually negligent parties according to their proportionate fault. This Comment focuses on recurring issues Ninth Circuit courts have faced in this area: apportioning liability in cases of violations by seamen's employers of Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) regulations, and determining whether to include both causation and fault in making the apportionment. This Comment argues that the Ninth Circuit should adopt rules consistent with the pronounced congressional and U.S. Supreme Court policies of achieving uniformity in domestic and international admiralty and providing liberal recovery for …

Mad Cows, Offended Emus, And Old Eggs: Perishable Product Disparagement Laws And Free Speech, Lisa Dobson Gould

Washington Law Review

In the wake of the 1989 controversy over Alar use on apples, several states enacted laws providing a civil cause of action to producers damaged by false statements disparaging the safety of their perishable food products. Commentators have suggested that these laws are unconstitutional and contrary to the First Amendment's free speech protections. This Comment argues that the majority of state laws either meet or exceed the constitutional protections established by the U.S. Supreme Court's defamation cases. However, these laws are unlikely to be used widely in the future because of their stringent proof requirements and because such suits often …

The Drudge Case: A Look At Issues In Cyberspace Defamation, Robert M. O'Neil

Washington Law Review

In the days following Newsweek's January 1998 decision to defer publication of an exposé of President Clinton's alleged affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, attention focused on the medium where the story first appeared: Matt Drudge's online gossip column, The Drudge Report. Though his postings on this issue seem to have been substantially accurate, Mr. Drudge has recently been sued for defamation because an earlier Report carried a story of a quite different sort, in which even he conceded there were some flaws. That lawsuit provides a vehicle through which to explore a fascinating array of legal …

Right Of Publicity Tarnishment And The First Amendment, Edgar Sargent

Washington Law Review

This Comment proposes a new cause of action for tarnishment of the right of publicity. The claim would protect the rights holder from uses that create offensive or degrading associations and thus harm the value of the protected persona. To prevent undue constraint upon First Amendment protected speech about public figures, publicity rights protection must be carefully balanced against free speech interests. In most cases, a speaker's right to refer to a public figure will be superior to the publicity rights holder's interest in controlling the manner in which a persona is used. However, publicity rights holders should prevail when …

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

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

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 …

Can Generic Products Be Disparaged? The "Of And Concerning" Requirement After Alar And The New Crop Of Agricultural Disparagement Statutes, Eric M. Stahl

Washington Law Review

Under the group libel principle, a statement broadly critical of a large group generally cannot give rise to a defamation claim; it is said that such a statement does not refer to, or is not of and concerning, any particular individual. This Comment addresses the extent to which the "of and concerning" requirement and group libel principle apply to claims of product disparagement, a tort similar to defamation but encompassing pecuniary injury, as opposed to damage to reputation, resulting from false statements. In particular, this Comment examines whether speech generally critical of a generic product can give rise to disparagement …