On June 4 the Washington Supreme Court issued its decision in Lunsford v. Saberhagen Holdings which has severe liability consequences. 

In a unanimous decision, the court held that strict liability applies retroactively to all claims, such as from asbestos exposure, that occurred before the adoption of strict liability.

Strict liability means a manufacturer or seller is liable for a defective or dangerous product even if it wasn't negligent in manufacturing or selling the product.

The US Chamber of Commerce filed a coalition friend of the court brief in the case arguing against retroactive application. The Chamber pointed out that retroactive application of strict liability would be inconsistent with the court's own recent rulings about retroactivity and particularly troubling for products liability defendants in the state.

Interestingly, last year, the Supreme Court of Ohio had a virtually identical case before it and reached the exact opposite result, which was left undisturbed on appeal to the US Supreme Court.

The Foundation for Fair Civil Justice (FFCJ) named the winners in its 12th annual Wacky Warning label contest. 

This year’s grand prize winner is a label attached to a portable toilet seat for outdoorsmen called “The Off-Road Commode” because it is designed to attach to a vehicle’s trailer hitch.  The label warns:  “Not for use on moving vehicles.” Click here to see the video!

The second prize winner is a wart removal product instruction guide that warns, “Do not use if you cannot see clearly to read the information in the information booklet.” 

A tie for third prize Winner includes a label on the underside of a cereal bowl warns, “Always use this product with adult supervision,” and a warning label on a bag of livestock castration rings that warns, “For animal use only.”

A fifth finalist sent in a warning label on a small, 1” x 4” LCD panel that warns, “Do not eat the LCD panel.” 

Wacky Warning Label Contest photos are available

The 2009 session comes to a close
Final score: LRC – 18, Trial lawyers – 1

After 105 days of a hard-fought battle, the LRC and its members can declare victory in the 2009 legislative session. With the trial lawyers having an abundance of supporters in both the House and Senate, it’s an even more impressive victory for the LRC.

To list the many liability-expanding bills this session would be too cumbersome, and perhaps even depressing. But in the end, there were 18 significant, bad bills. The lowlights of this list include:

1. A measure to hold product manufacturers liable retroactively for asbestos-containing products they did not make or specify should be used with their product
2. A false claims bill which would obligate the state attorney general to investigate allegations of fraud brought by private citizens—such as bounty hunters and contingent fee attorneys—who have a clear interest in maximizing recovery.  The trial lawyers like to say this would make money for the state, but the Attorney General said it would actually cost the state money to the tune of $7.5 million per biennium
3. A bill to increase contractor liability.  Yes, again.  Included in this bill was a provision requiring contactors to provide insured warranties.  The problem was, according to the Office of the Insurance Commissioner (OIC), no such insurance is available in Washington despite the OIC’s efforts to lure an insurer to offer such a product.
4. A measure to effectively eliminate the use of protective orders in litigation.  Protective orders are necessary to protect against disclosure to the public of trade secrets and other confidential and sensitive information which, if disclosed, could threaten the economic vitality of an enterprise.  The current law governing the use of protective orders was developed by a legal task force at the request of then-Gov. Lowry and widely adopted by the legislature. 

Perhaps one of the greatest successes for LRC members was the fact that the trial lawyers’ number one priority was not even introduced this year.  Their bill to expand the state’s wrongful death statute didn’t get off the ground thanks to the good work of the LRC last year.  A 2008 in-depth study commissioned by the LRC revealed that the proposal would increase the frequency of claims against the state by a whopping 80%, costing taxpayers $19 million per biennium.  The LRC managed to kill the bill last year and keep it off the agenda this year. 

The legislature and the governor did give the trial lawyers one bill: a measure to expand the state’s consumer protection act(CPA) by increasing the damages allowed from $10,000 to $25,000 and removing the requirement that a private plaintiff prove that the public is impacted by the CPA claim.  This is a win for trial lawyers because it is widely expected to be an invitation for more lawsuits to be filed more easily, for more money. 

But even with the CPA bill, the 2009 session was undoubtedly an enormous success for the LRC and its members.  18-1 is reason for celebration. 

For a complete list of liability bills from the 2009 session, see the LRC’s bill tracker.

•To limit expansion of tort  liability
•To reduce lawsuit defense  costs
•To speed resolution of lawsuits
•To improve fairness & certainty of
  civil justice system

The LRC membership is a broad coalition of
 •Business
 •Government entities
 •Nonprofit organizations

See our member list of over 70 Washington organizations

Sign up for the free LRC E-News, providing supporters of liability reform with quick, concise reports of the latest state and national liability information. To be added to the distribution list, e-mail LRC Executive Director Dana Childers.

Their name says it all. SickOfLawsuits.com has compiled a list of the top five “looniest lawsuits” of 2008. And who says our judicial system doesn’t need common-sense reform?

5. Lap Dance Lawsuit
New York securities trader Stephen Craig is suing a Manhattan strip joint for “serious injuries” he sustained during a lap dance. Craig, who is married, alleges that a stripper employed by the Hot Lap Dance Club near Madison Square Garden swiveled and smacked him in the eye with the heel of her shoe during an early morning performance last November. The Associated Press, March 17, 2008.

4. Lost her Laptop and her Mind
A Washington, D.C. woman is suing Best Buy for $54 million because the store purportedly lost her laptop computer. Although the electronics retailer apologized, provided reimbursement for the cost of the computer, and gave the woman a $900 gift card for her inconvenience, she remains unsatisfied. She acknowledges that $54 million unreasonable but will nevertheless pursue the lawsuit. MSNBC, February 15, 2008.

3. Blonde-Turned-Brunette Sues
A Connecticut woman sued L’Oreal Inc., alleging that the company ruined her social life when she accidentally dyed her hair brunette with one of its products. The woman said she can never return to her natural blonde hue, a shock that left her so traumatized she needed anti-depressants and had to stay home and wear hats most of the time. The Associated Press, October 9, 2008.

2. $54 Million “Pants Suit”
Sitting D.C. judge Roy Pearson sued his dry cleaners for $54 million over a lost pair of paints, alleging their “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign was a fraud. After two years of battle, Soo and Jin Chung, owners of Custom Cleaners and victims of this abusive lawsuit, won the case. Sadly, however, they were forced to close one of their three stores as a result of the costly and tiring lawsuit. Judge Pearson continues to abuse the system and is appealing the verdict. The Washington Post, October 23, 2008.

1. Wronged by a Thong
Macrida Patterson is suing Victoria’s Secret after a piece of her rhinestone-decorated undergarment, described as “saucy” and “slingshot-like,” was launched into her eye. Despite having received only minimal medical attention the following morning and laundering the thong several times before the incident, Patterson and her lawyer believe the lingerie chain is responsible for monetary compensation. MSNBC, June 19, 2008.