Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Foundation, Inc., 170 Wash. 2d 380 (2010)

Citation: Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Foundation, Inc., 170 Wash. 2d 380 (2010)
Parent Document: Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Foundation, Inc., 170 Wash. 2d 380 (2010)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2010-11-04
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4909141/eastwood-v-horse-harbor-foundation-inc/ ↗

Full Text

1,268 chars

¶19 The question is how a court can distinguish between claims where a plaintiff is limited to contract remedies and cases where recovery in tort may be available? A review of our cases on the economic loss rule shows that ordinary tort principles have always resolved this question. An injury is remediable in tort if it traces back to the breach of a tort duty arising independently of the terms of the contract. The court determines whether there is an independent tort duty of care, and “ £[t]he existence of a duty is a question of law and depends on mixed considerations of logic, common sense, justice, policy, and precedent.’ ” Snyder v. Med. Serv. Corp. of E. Wash., 145 Wn.2d 233, 243, 35 P.3d 1158 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Lords v. N. Auto. Corp., 75 Wn. App. 589, 596, 881 P.2d 256 (1994)); see also Affiliated FM Ins. Co. v. LTK Consulting Servs., Inc., 170 Wn.2d 442, 448-49, 243 P.2d 521 (2010). Where this court has stated that the economic loss rule applies, what we have meant is that considerations of common sense, justice, policy, and precedent in a particular set of circumstances led us to the legal conclusion that the defendant did not owe a duty. When no independent tort duty exists, tort does not provide a remedy.

Other Sections in This Document (97)

Full Text