Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Falk v. Keene Corp.green2 sentences2015Falk, 113 Wn.2d at 653 . ¶56 The court held the WPLA allows the plaintiff to show the product is “not reasonably safe as designed” under a risk utility test or, in the alternative, under the consumer expectations test that requires the plaintiff to show the product was “unsafe to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer.” RCW 7.72-.030(l)(a), (3); Falk, 113 Wn.2d at 653 . ¶57 Consistent with the WPLA and case law, the WPI for a strict liability design defect claim against a manufacturer, WPI 110.02, “Manufacturer’s Duty — Design” (Strict Liability Instruction) 2015Falk, 113 Wn.2d at 653 . ¶56 The court held the WPLA allows the plaintiff to show the product is “not reasonably safe as designed” under a risk utility test or, in the alternative, under the consumer expectations test that requires the plaintiff to show the product was “unsafe to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer.” RCW 7.72-.030(l)(a), (3); Falk, 113 Wn.2d at 653 . ¶57 Consistent with the WPLA and case law, the WPI for a strict liability design defect claim against a manufacturer, WPI 110.02, “Manufacturer’s Duty — Design” (Strict Liability Instruction) | 2 | 8 |
United States v. Carroll Towing Co.green2 sentences2000Ironically, the majority’s analysis of a design defect case employs the traditional risk-utility test that is the essence of the negligence analysis famously set out by Judge Learned Hand in United States v. Carroll Towing Co., 159 F.2d 169, 173 (2d Cir. 1947) (“if the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B < [is less than] PL.”). 2000Ironically, the majority's analysis of a design defect case employs the traditional risk-utility test that is the essence of the negligence analysis famously set out by Judge Learned Hand in United States v. Carroll Towing Co., 159 F.2d 169, 173 (2d Cir.1947) ("if the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B Falk v. Keene Corp., 113 Wash.2d 645 , 782 P.2d 974 (1989), that the Legislature really did not mean negligence when it used that word in RCW 7.72.030(1) and instead we should employ a strict | 2 | 2 |
Ayers v. Johnson & Johnson Baby Products Co.green2 sentences2019Falk, 113 Wn.2d at 645 (design defect claim); Avers, 117 Wn.2d at 747 (failure to warn claim). 2019Avers,, 117 Wn.2d at 764 . 27 Mitchell testified about the cost of guards in the context of the risk-utility test. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Anderson v. Weslo, Inc.
green
2 sentences2012Other questions, for example, whether the danger was so obvious that no warnings were required, may arise, see Anderson v. Weslo, Inc., 79 Wn. 2003Id. | 3 | 2003–2012 |
Soproni v. Polygon Apartment Partners
green
2 sentences2003Id. at 209, 890 P.2d 469 . [1] Under the risk-utility test, liability can be established by showing that, "at the time of manufacture, the likelihood the product *218 would cause the plaintiff's harm or similar harms, and the seriousness of those harms, outweighed the manufacturer's burden to design a product that would have prevented those harms and any adverse effect a practical, feasible alternative would have on the product's usefulness." Lecy v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 94 Wash. App. 949, 959-60 , 973 P.2d 1110 (1999) (quoting Soproni v. Polygon Apartment Partners, 137 Wash.2d 319, 326 , 97 1999App. at 919 . 37 M. 38 Id. 32 Soproni v. Polygon Apartment Partners, 137 Wn.2d 319, 326 , 971 P.2d 500 (1999). 33 ld. at 327. 34 Some courts have acknowledged that the risk-utility test in design defect cases is actually a negligence approach, in that it expressly looks at the reasonableness of the manufacturer’s choices. | 3 | 1999–2003 |
Soproni v. Polygon Apartment Partners
green
2 sentences2003Id. at 209, 890 P.2d 469 . [1] Under the risk-utility test, liability can be established by showing that, "at the time of manufacture, the likelihood the product *218 would cause the plaintiff's harm or similar harms, and the seriousness of those harms, outweighed the manufacturer's burden to design a product that would have prevented those harms and any adverse effect a practical, feasible alternative would have on the product's usefulness." Lecy v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 94 Wash. App. 949, 959-60 , 973 P.2d 1110 (1999) (quoting Soproni v. Polygon Apartment Partners, 137 Wash.2d 319, 326 , 97 1999App. at 919 . 37 M. 38 Id. 32 Soproni v. Polygon Apartment Partners, 137 Wn.2d 319, 326 , 971 P.2d 500 (1999). 33 ld. at 327. 34 Some courts have acknowledged that the risk-utility test in design defect cases is actually a negligence approach, in that it expressly looks at the reasonableness of the manufacturer’s choices. | 3 | 1999–2003 |
Baughn v. Honda Motor Co.
green
2 sentences1988In Baughn v. Honda Motor Co., 107 Wn.2d 127 , 727 P.2d 655 (1986), the Washington Supreme Court rejected use of a risk-utility analysis for product liability claims. 1988In Baughn v. Honda Motor Co., 107 Wn.2d 127 , 727 P.2d 655 (1986), the Washington Supreme Court rejected use of a risk-utility analysis for product liability claims. | 3 | 1988–2000 |
Lecy v. Bayliner Marine Corp.
green
2 sentences2003Id. at 209. 1 Under the risk-utility test, liability can be established by showing that, “at time of manufacture, the likelihood that the product would cause the plaintiff’s harm or similar harms, and the seriousness of those harms, outweighed the manufacturer’s burden to design a product that would have prevented those harms and any adverse effect a practical, feasible alternative would have on the product’s usefulness.” Lecy v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 94 Wn. 2003Id. at 209, 890 P.2d 469 . [1] Under the risk-utility test, liability can be established by showing that, "at the time of manufacture, the likelihood the product *218 would cause the plaintiff's harm or similar harms, and the seriousness of those harms, outweighed the manufacturer's burden to design a product that would have prevented those harms and any adverse effect a practical, feasible alternative would have on the product's usefulness." Lecy v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 94 Wash. App. 949, 959-60 , 973 P.2d 1110 (1999) (quoting Soproni v. Polygon Apartment Partners, 137 Wash.2d 319, 326 , 97 | 2 | 2003–2003 |
Reece v. Good Samaritan Hospital
green
2 sentences2002Division Two found that while a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the risk-utility test, no such issue existed related to the consumer expectations test. *495 The court stated that the consumer expectations test could not be met, "where, as here, a manufacturer has adequately warned consumers of the risks associated with using a product." Id. at 583 , 953 P.2d 117 . 2002Division Two found that while a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the risk-utility test, no such issue existed related to the consumer expectations test. *495 The court stated that the consumer expectations test could not be met, "where, as here, a manufacturer has adequately warned consumers of the risks associated with using a product." Id. at 583 , 953 P.2d 117 . | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Connor v. SKAGIT CORPORATION
green
2 sentences2000This was in keeping with an earlier common law holding that “[a] plaintiff may . . . establish that a product is unreasonably dangerous by means of factors other than the existence of alternative design.” Connor v. Skagit Corp., 99 Wn.2d 709, 715 , 664 P.2d 1208 (1983) (emphasis added). 7 We did note in Couch, however, that in cases where a plaintiff seeks to prove liability through the use of only one factor, such as the risk-utility test instead of the consumer expectations test, that factor must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. 2000This was in keeping with an earlier common law holding that “[a] plaintiff may . . . establish that a product is unreasonably dangerous by means of factors other than the existence of alternative design.” Connor v. Skagit Corp., 99 Wn.2d 709, 715 , 664 P.2d 1208 (1983) (emphasis added). 7 We did note in Couch, however, that in cases where a plaintiff seeks to prove liability through the use of only one factor, such as the risk-utility test instead of the consumer expectations test, that factor must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Couch v. Mine Safety Appliances Co.
green
2 sentences2000Couch, 107 Wn.2d at 237 n.4 (citing Connor, 99 Wn.2d at 715-17 ). 2000Couch, 107 Wash.2d at 237 n. 4, 728 P.2d 585 (citing Connor, 99 Wash.2d at 715-17 , 664 P.2d 1208 ). | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Bruns v. Paccar, Inc.
green
2 sentences2003Id. at 209, 890 P.2d 469 . [1] Under the risk-utility test, liability can be established by showing that, "at the time of manufacture, the likelihood the product *218 would cause the plaintiff's harm or similar harms, and the seriousness of those harms, outweighed the manufacturer's burden to design a product that would have prevented those harms and any adverse effect a practical, feasible alternative would have on the product's usefulness." Lecy v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 94 Wash. App. 949, 959-60 , 973 P.2d 1110 (1999) (quoting Soproni v. Polygon Apartment Partners, 137 Wash.2d 319, 326 , 97 2003Id. at 209, 890 P.2d 469 . [1] Under the risk-utility test, liability can be established by showing that, "at the time of manufacture, the likelihood the product *218 would cause the plaintiff's harm or similar harms, and the seriousness of those harms, outweighed the manufacturer's burden to design a product that would have prevented those harms and any adverse effect a practical, feasible alternative would have on the product's usefulness." Lecy v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 94 Wash. App. 949, 959-60 , 973 P.2d 1110 (1999) (quoting Soproni v. Polygon Apartment Partners, 137 Wash.2d 319, 326 , 97 | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.