 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lunsford v. Saberhagen Holdings2/14/2005
Motion for reconsideration denied April 11, 2005
JUDGES: Concurring: Ann Schindler C. Kenneth Grosse
Manufacturers and sellers of unreasonably dangerous products are strictly liable for injuries to users and consumers of those products. Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. 402A cmt. c (1965). Here, Ronald Lunsford argues that a supplier of asbestos containing products should be strictly liable for injuries caused by his childhood exposure to asbestos dust brought home by his father who worked as an insulation installer. The trial court granted the manufacturer's motion for summary judgment, concluding, as a matter of law, that Lunsford was not a user of the manufacturer's product. We reverse the trial court's order granting summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.
FACTS
Ronald Lunsford suffers from mesothelioma. Lunsford was exposed to asbestos over a number of years from a variety of sources. At issue in this case is Lunsford's secondary exposure to asbestos as a child. Lunsford's father worked for the Brower Company at a Texaco refinery in Anacortes, Washington in 1958. Lunsford alleges that Brower is a predecessor of Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. and Brower provided asbestos-containing insulation for the refinery. Lunsford asserts that his father would return home from work with asbestos dust on his clothes, hat, vehicle, and tools, and that Lunsford was exposed to that dust.
Lunsford and his wife sued Saberhagen under theories of negligence, strict liability, false representation, and loss of consortium. Saberhagen moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that as a matter of law, Saberhagen was not strictly liable for Lunsford's injuries. Saberhagen argued that Lunsford is not a user under the Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. 402A (1965). The trial court granted Saberhagen's motion for summary judgment on the issue of strict liability and denied Lunsford's motion for reconsideration. Lunsford appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review an order granting summary judgment de novo, making the same inquiry as the trial court. Hartley v. State, 103 Wn.2d 768, 774, 698 P.2d 77 (1985).
ANALYSIS
In Ulmer v. Ford Motor Co., 75 Wn.2d 522, 452 P.2d 729 (1969), the Washington Supreme Court adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. 402A (1965), which provides for strict liability for manufacturers of unreasonably dangerous products: (1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his {or her} property, if:
(a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and
(b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold.
(2) The rule stated in Subsection (1) applies although
(a) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his {or her} product, and
(b) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relationship with the seller.
The court extended the rule to apply strict liability to product sellers in Seattle-First Nat'l Bank v. Tabert, 86 Wn.2d 145, 542 P.2d 774 (1975). The essence of this rule is that:
'{a} manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being. . . .
'. . .
'. . . To establish the manu
Page 1 2 3 4 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|