Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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

Other Sections in This Document (97)

Full Text

880 chars
¶60 In Atherton Condominium Apartment-Owners Ass’n Board of Directors v. Blume Development Co., 115 Wn.2d 506, 534, 799 P.2d 250 (1990), we discussed the doctrine only briefly. Again, we rejected plaintiffs’ negligent design claim against the architect of their condominium project because the specific defects complained of were not caused by the architect’s work and because the plaintiffs cited no relevant authority that an architect had a tort duty to third party purchasers. Id. In a footnote, and without relevant analysis, the court also noted that the plaintiff owners had “fail[ed] to articulate a recognizable negligence claim [and] appear to seek only economic loss damages which are not recoverable under tort law.” Id. at 534 n.17 (citing Architect and Engineer Liability; Claims Against Design Professionals § 7.9 (Robert F. Cushman & Thomas G. Bottum eds., 1987)).