 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stanton v. Bayliner Marine Corp.8/17/1992
ies but equally dispositive is the following reasoning: Under admiralty law, "economic loss" claims must sound in contract or not at all. See East River, 476 U.S. at 870. The substantive contract law which applies to the claims asserted here is Washington's. Washington's product liability act (RCW 7.72) creates a single cause of action for product-related harms that preempts previously existing common law product liability remedies. See RCW 7.72.010(4) and Graybar, 112 Wash. 2d at 853-54. Under the product liability statute, "economic loss" is determined by a risk of harm analysis. See Graybar, 112 Wash. 2d at 860 (citing Stuart v. Coldwell Banker Comm'l Group, Inc., 109 Wash. 2d 406, 417-22, 745 P.2d 1284 (1987)). Thus,
even applying admiralty law to the claims herein would require reversal.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case remanded.
Disposition
Holding that the claims arose in admiralty and that the state law definition of "economic loss" applied, the court reverses the judgment and remands the case for further proceedings.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|