Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Foundation, Inc., 241 P.3d 1256 (2010)

Citation
Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Foundation, Inc., 241 P.3d 1256 (2010)
Parent Document
Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Foundation, Inc., 241 P.3d 1256 (2010)
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Effective Date
2010-11-04

Other Sections in This Document (102)

Full Text

564 chars
¶ 63 I agree with and commend the lead opinion's conclusion that the term independent duty rule is a more appropriate term than economic loss rule to describe the doctrine. Id. at 1264-65. I disagree with Chief Justice Madsen's attempt to define "economic losses" in her concurrence. Those losses we have excluded by application of what we called the economic loss rule we have called economic losses, and we have excluded economic losses by application of what we called the economic loss rule. It is perversely circular to begin the analysis with the end result.