Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.030 (2026)

Liability of manufacturer

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) A product manufacturer is subject to liability to a claimant if the claimant's harm was proximately caused by the negligence of the manufacturer in that the product was not reasonably safe as designed or not reasonably safe because adequate warnings or instructions were not provided.

(a) A product is not reasonably safe as designed, if, at the time of manufacture, the likelihood that the product would cause the claimant's harm or similar harms, and the seriousness of those harms, outweighed the burden on the manufacturer to design a product that would have prevented those harms and the adverse effect that an alternative design that was practical and feasible would have on the usefulness of the product: PROVIDED, That a firearm or ammunition shall not be deemed defective in design on the basis that the benefits of the product do not outweigh the risk of injury posed by its potential to cause serious injury, damage, or death when discharged.

(b) A product is not reasonably safe because adequate warnings or instructions were not provided with the product, if, at the time of manufacture, the likelihood that the product would cause the claimant's harm or similar harms, and the seriousness of those harms, rendered the warnings or instructions of the manufacturer inadequate and the manufacturer could have provided the warnings or instructions which the claimant alleges would have been adequate.

(c) A product is not reasonably safe because adequate warnings or instructions were not provided after the product was manufactured where a manufacturer learned or where a reasonably prudent manufacturer should have learned about a danger connected with the product after it was manufactured. In such a case, the manufacturer is under a duty to act with regard to issuing warnings or instructions concerning the danger in the manner that a reasonably prudent manufacturer would act in the same or similar circumstances. This duty is satisfied if the manufacturer exercises reasonable care to inform product users.

(2) A product manufacturer is subject to strict liability to a claimant if the claimant's harm was proximately caused by the fact that the product was not reasonably safe in construction or not reasonably safe because it did not conform to the manufacturer's express warranty or to the implied warranties under Title 62A RCW.

(a) A product is not reasonably safe in construction if, when the product left the control of the manufacturer, the product deviated in some material way from the design specifications or performance standards of the manufacturer, or deviated in some material way from otherwise identical units of the same product line.

(b) A product does not conform to the express warranty of the manufacturer if it is made part of the basis of the bargain and relates to a material fact or facts concerning the product and the express warranty proved to be untrue.

(c) Whether or not a product conforms to an implied warranty created under Title 62A RCW shall be determined under that title.

(3) In determining whether a product was not reasonably safe under this section, the trier of fact shall consider whether the product was unsafe to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer.

[ 1988 c 94 s 1; 1981 c 27 s 4.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 186 cases (73 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Falk v. Keene Corp., 782 P.2d 974 (Wash. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Falk v. Keene Corp., 782 P.2d 974 (Wash. 1989). · cites it 61× “Subsection (1)(b) provides that a product is not reasonably safe where warnings and instructions provided at the time of manufacture are inadequate under a balancing test similar to that for design defects. Subsection (1)(c) provides that a product is not reasonably safe because…”

Soproni v. Polygon Apt. Partners, 971 P.2d 500 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 32× “We also determined that a plaintiff who seeks to establish liability on the part of a manufacturer under RCW 7.72.030 may do so in two distinct ways.”

Ayers v. Johnson & Johnson Baby Prods. Co., 818 P.2d 1337 (Wash. 1992). · cites it 23× “Johnson & *761 Johnson also quotes from a report prepared by the Senate Select Committee on Tort and Product Liability Reform during passage of the tort reform act of 1981, of which RCW 7.72.030 is a part. That report, argues Johnson & Johnson, indicates that the Select…”

Ayers v. Johnson & Johnson Baby Prods. Co., 797 P.2d 527 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 35× “[3] Also, the Ayerses were not required to prove the exact wording of an adequate warning.”

Bruns v. Paccar, Inc., 890 P.2d 469 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 16× “Drivers assert a design defect products liability claim under RCW 7.72.030. Under that statute, the elements of a design defect products liability claim are (1) a manufacturer's product (2) that was not reasonably safe as designed (3) caused harm to the plaintiff.”

Johnson v. Recreational Equip., Inc., 247 P.3d 18 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 10× “As a general rule, manufacturers of defective products are held to a higher standard of liability, including strict liability where injury is caused by a manufacturing defect or a breach of warranty. RCW 7.72.030(2). [2] In contrast, product sellers are ordinarily liable only…”

Diana & Mark Sherman v. Pliva, Inc, Teva Pharm., 440 P.3d 1016 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 16× “RCW 7.72.030 – Duty to Warn Under the WPLA, a product manufacturer can be liable for the failure to provide adequate warnings regarding the product if that product caused harm to the plaintiff.”

Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., Inc., 896 P.2d 682 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 9× “030(l)(b); nonconformity with implied warranties, RCW 7.72.030(2); failure to meet consumer safety expectations, RCW 7.”

Johnson v. Recreational Equip., Inc., 159 Wash. App. 939 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 10× “See RCW 7.72.030, .040. As a general rule, manufacturers of defective products are held to a higher standard of liability, including strict liability where injury is caused by a manufacturing defect or a breach of warranty.”

Ruiz-Guzman v. Amvac Chem. Corp., 7 P.3d 795 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 16× “” RCW 7.72.030(1) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs do not dispute the adequacy of the warnings or instructions provided with the Phosdrin, 3 but rather argue that “the product was not reasonably safe as designed.”

Bylsma v. Burger King Corp., 293 P.3d 1168 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 8× “RCW 7.72.030(1). ¶8 Although much of the WPLA was taken from the Model Uniform Product Liability Act (UPLA), 44 Fed.”

Taylor v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 389 P.3d 517 (Wash. 2017). · cites it 4× “” RCW 7.72.030(1). A product is not reasonably safe due to inadequate warnings where the likelihood and seriousness of the harms the product could cause “rendered the warnings or instructions of the manufacturer inadequate” and could have been provided.”

Show all 186 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.030(1) — 95 cases

Ayers v. Johnson & Johnson Baby Prods. Co., 818 P.2d 1337 (Wash. 1992). “Johnson & *761 Johnson also quotes from a report prepared by the Senate Select Committee on Tort and Product Liability Reform during passage of the tort reform act of 1981, of which RCW 7.72.030 is a part. That report, argues Johnson & Johnson, indicates that the Select…”

Washington State Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp., 858 P.2d 1054 (Wash. 1993).

Falk v. Keene Corp., 782 P.2d 974 (Wash. 1989). “Subsection (1)(b) provides that a product is not reasonably safe where warnings and instructions provided at the time of manufacture are inadequate under a balancing test similar to that for design defects. Subsection (1)(c) provides that a product is not reasonably safe because…”

Soproni v. Polygon Apt. Partners, 971 P.2d 500 (Wash. 1999). “We also determined that a plaintiff who seeks to establish liability on the part of a manufacturer under RCW 7.72.030 may do so in two distinct ways.”

Taylor v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 389 P.3d 517 (Wash. 2017). “” RCW 7.72.030(1). A product is not reasonably safe due to inadequate warnings where the likelihood and seriousness of the harms the product could cause “rendered the warnings or instructions of the manufacturer inadequate” and could have been provided.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.030(1)(1) — 1 case

Trautt v. Keystone RV Co. (W.D. Wash. 2021).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.030(1)(a) — 30 cases

Hyjek v. Anthony Indus., 944 P.2d 1036 (Wash. 1997).

Bruns v. Paccar, Inc., 890 P.2d 469 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “Drivers assert a design defect products liability claim under RCW 7.72.030. Under that statute, the elements of a design defect products liability claim are (1) a manufacturer's product (2) that was not reasonably safe as designed (3) caused harm to the plaintiff.”

Lenhardt v. Ford Motor Co., 683 P.2d 1097 (Wash. 1984).

Higgins v. Intex Rec. Corp., 99 P.3d 421 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.030(1)(b) — 30 cases

Ayers v. Johnson & Johnson Baby Prods. Co., 797 P.2d 527 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). “[3] Also, the Ayerses were not required to prove the exact wording of an adequate warning.”

Diana & Mark Sherman v. Pliva, Inc, Teva Pharm., 440 P.3d 1016 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “RCW 7.72.030 – Duty to Warn Under the WPLA, a product manufacturer can be liable for the failure to provide adequate warnings regarding the product if that product caused harm to the plaintiff.”

Hiner v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 978 P.2d 505 (Wash. 1999).

Hiner v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 959 P.2d 1158 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.030(1)(c) — 11 cases

Esparza v. Skyreach Equip., Inc., 15 P.3d 188 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).

Esparza v. Skyreach Equip., Inc., 103 Wash. App. 916 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).

Kerry L. Erickson, V. Pharmacia Llc., 548 P.3d 226 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.030(2) — 40 cases

Johnson v. Recreational Equip., Inc., 247 P.3d 18 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “As a general rule, manufacturers of defective products are held to a higher standard of liability, including strict liability where injury is caused by a manufacturing defect or a breach of warranty. RCW 7.72.030(2). [2] In contrast, product sellers are ordinarily liable only…”

Johnson v. Recreational Equip., Inc., 159 Wash. App. 939 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “See RCW 7.72.030, .040. As a general rule, manufacturers of defective products are held to a higher standard of liability, including strict liability where injury is caused by a manufacturing defect or a breach of warranty.”

Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., Inc., 896 P.2d 682 (Wash. 1995). “030(l)(b); nonconformity with implied warranties, RCW 7.72.030(2); failure to meet consumer safety expectations, RCW 7.”

Bylsma v. Burger King Corp., 293 P.3d 1168 (Wash. 2013). “RCW 7.72.030(1). ¶8 Although much of the WPLA was taken from the Model Uniform Product Liability Act (UPLA), 44 Fed.”

Laisure-Radke v. Par Pharm., Inc., 426 F. Supp. 2d 1163 (W.D. Wash. 2006).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.030(2)(a) — 14 cases

Bylsma v. Burger King Corp., 293 P.3d 1168 (Wash. 2013). “RCW 7.72.030(1). ¶8 Although much of the WPLA was taken from the Model Uniform Product Liability Act (UPLA), 44 Fed.”

Laisure-Radke v. Par Pharm., Inc., 426 F. Supp. 2d 1163 (W.D. Wash. 2006).

DuRocher v. Riddell, Inc., 97 F. Supp. 3d 1006 (S.D. Ind. 2015).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.030(2)(b) — 4 cases

Didier v. Drexel Chem. Co., 938 P.2d 364 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).

Whyble v. The Nature's Bounty Co. (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Rein v. Rite Aid Headquarters Corp. (W.D. Wash. 2021).

Rydman v. Champion Petfoods USA, Inc. (W.D. Wash. 2023).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.030(2)(c) — 1 case

Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., Inc., 896 P.2d 682 (Wash. 1995). “030(l)(b); nonconformity with implied warranties, RCW 7.72.030(2); failure to meet consumer safety expectations, RCW 7.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.030(3) — 46 cases

Ayers v. Johnson & Johnson Baby Prods. Co., 797 P.2d 527 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). “[3] Also, the Ayerses were not required to prove the exact wording of an adequate warning.”

North Coast Air Servs., Ltd. v. Grumman Corp., 759 P.2d 405 (Wash. 1988).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.030(a) — 1 case

Kirkland v. Emhart Glass S.A., 805 F. Supp. 2d 1072 (W.D. Wash. 2011).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.030(b) — 1 case

Raymond Budd & Vickie Budd, V. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc., 505 P.3d 120 (Wash. Ct. App. 2022).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.030(c) — 1 case

David A. Falsberg v. Glaxosmithkline, Plc (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.030(l)(a) — 18 cases

Ruiz-Guzman v. Amvac Chem. Corp., 7 P.3d 795 (Wash. 2000). “” RCW 7.72.030(1) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs do not dispute the adequacy of the warnings or instructions provided with the Phosdrin, 3 but rather argue that “the product was not reasonably safe as designed.”

Hyjek v. Anthony Indus., 133 Wash. 2d 414 (Wash. 1997).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.030(l)(b) — 19 cases

Ayers v. Johnson & Johnson Baby Prods. Co., 797 P.2d 527 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). “[3] Also, the Ayerses were not required to prove the exact wording of an adequate warning.”

Macias v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc., 282 P.3d 1069 (Wash. 2012).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.030(l)(c) — 5 cases

Timberline Air Serv., Inc. v. BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON, INC., 884 P.2d 920 (Wash. 1994).

Couch v. Mine Saf. Appliances Co., 728 P.2d 585 (Wash. 1986).

Kirkland v. Emhart Glass S.A., 805 F. Supp. 2d 1072 (W.D. Wash. 2011).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.72.030(lXa) — 1 case

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.