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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2372386/eastwood-v-horse-harbor-foundation-inc/ ↗

Full Text

1,250 chars

[5] The concurrence written by Chief Justice Madsen posits that our analysis to this point is unnecessary and that we need not say more than: "the economic loss doctrine cannot be applied to bar a statutory cause of action." Concurrence (Madsen, C.J.) at 1269. The Madsen concurrence is correct that we cannot use a common law doctrine to abolish a statutory cause of action. But this view accounts for only half of the equation in this case. RCW 64.12.020, by its terms, gives a remedy for waste, not other sorts of injuries. Thus, when a plaintiff brings an action under RCW 64.12.020, an issue is whether the plaintiff's injury is waste within the meaning of the statute. Eastwood claims her damages are for waste, whereas Warren and the Dalings, following the Court of Appeals' analysis, insist that Eastwood's injury is merely an economic loss in the sense that she lost the benefit of a contractual bargain. As in all cases involving the economic loss rule, we cannot resolve these competing claims without looking to the legal duties breached by Horse Harbor, Warren, and the Dalings. Further, RCW 64.12.020 simply provides a right of action for an aggrieved plaintiff. The plaintiff's substantive right, however, is one defined at common law.

Other Sections in This Document (102)

Full Text