 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hiner v. Bridgestone/Firestone Inc.6/17/1999
Oral Argument Date: 05/11/1999
Judges: Authored by Charles Z. Smith Concurring: Richard P. Guy Charles W. Johnson Barbara A. Madsen Gerry L. Alexander Philip A. Talmadge Richard B. Sanders Faith E Ireland
En Banc
Petitioner Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., a corporation, seeks discretionary review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, Division III, reversing Judgement as a matter of law by the Walla Walla County Superior Court on Respondent Julia K. Hiner's product liability claim and affirming dismissal of Petitioner's affirmative defense of entity liability. The Court of Appeals concluded that Respondent had provided sufficient evidence to support her claim against Petitioner under the Washington Product Liability Act and that the affirmative defense of entity liability in a product liability claim does not apply to other than manufacturers and product sellers. We granted review. We reverse.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
The questions presented in this case are (1) whether under Court Rule (CR) 50(a) Respondent presented sufficient evidence to support a claim under the Product Liability Act, RCW ch. 7.72, against Petitioner, the manufacturer of snow tires ; and (2) whether under the Product Liability Act the affirmative defense of entity liability applies to other than manufacturers and product sellers.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On June 19, 1995, Respondent Julia K. Hiner filed a complaint in the Walla Walla County Superior Court against Petitioner Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. under the Washington Product Liability Act (PLA), RCW ch. 7.72, for not providing warnings on its snow tires that mounting studded snow tires only on the front wheels of a front-wheel drive vehicle was unsafe. Respondent claimed damages for personal injuries she sustained in an accident on January 18, 1993 as she drove her automobile from Walla Walla to Spokane on State Route 127. She claimed that prior to the accident she was unaware of the danger of having studded snow tires only on the front wheels of a front-wheel drive vehicle and that the specific tire configuration caused her to lose control of her 1988 Hyundai Excel (a front-wheel drive vehicle) on the wet road and collide with the trailer of an on-coming grain truck. Respondent suffered serious injuries which included a punctured lung, a broken arm and leg, multiple facial wounds, and an ankle joint replacement. She claimed her injuries seriously affected her careers as a nurse and as a fashion model.
In late 1990 or early 1991, Respondent's father gave her a set of two studded snow tires he had stored in his garage. The record does not indicate how he acquired them, when he acquired them or whether he had used them. The tires were manufactured in 1985 by Petitioner Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. Respondent first used the tires on her Hyundai automobile without incident in late 1990 or early 1991. On January 4, 1993 she had the tires installed on the front wheels of her automobile by Louis J. Preso, a service station operator. The tires on the rear wheels, Goodyear Corsica radial tires, were original equipment and remained on the automobile. The accident occurred on January 18, 1993 following installation of the snow tires.
In its answer to Respondent's complaint, Petitioner raised the affirmative defense of entity liability which allows the trier of fact to apportion liability among any other parties proven to be reckless, negligent or otherwise at "fault" for plaintiff's damages.
On November 6, 1995, Respondent filed a motion to amend her complaint to include a claim under the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA), RCW ch. 19.86, and a claim for punitive damages und
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|