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

2,143 chars

¶59 Two years later, we were asked to consider the interplay of the WPLA and the doctrine. Graybar, 112 Wn.2d at 862-67. Under the WPLA, a party suing for an injury caused by a product defect may recover “ ‘any damages recognized by the courts of this state’ ” with the exception of “ ‘direct or consequential economic loss.’ ” Id. at 851 (quoting RCW 7.72.010(6)). Washington Water Power sued for damages resulting from defective insulators in federal court on a variety of theories,10 seeking both direct and consequential economic damages, as well as personal injury and other property damages. Id. at 849. The federal court certified to this court whether the WPLA preempted common law remedies and, if so, whether the loss was compensable under the act. Id. at 848. This court found that the WPLA did preempt common law remedies and that the WPLA provided the plaintiff no remedy because the only damages available were economic losses barred by the statute of limitations. We again rooted our analysis in public policy, and we again focused duties owed by the parties. Id. at 860-65.11 We found that the “risk of harm analysis appropriately accommodates the safety and risk-*414spreading policies that underlie the law of product liability, and ‘provides a workable and accurate distinction between accidents that should be actionable in tort and losses that should remain in the domain of warranty law.’ ” Id. at 865 (quoting Lindley J. Brenza, Comment, Asbestos in Schools and the Economic Loss Doctrine, 54 U. Chi. L. Rev. 277, 300 (1987)). Under this analysis, in the products liability context, if the product was hazardous and caused harm, the defendant breached the duty of care and tort law applied. If the product merely disappointed the consumer in light of the contractual bargain, the defendant potentially breached a warranty, and the law of contracts applied. WPLA did not (and does not) define “economic loss.” See RCW 7.72.010 (definition section). In that context, we said, “Generally speaking, ‘economic loss’ describes the diminution of product value that results from a product defect.” Graybar, 112 Wn.2d at 856 n.5.

Other Sections in This Document (97)

Full Text